Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER  in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,

"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Torquay," presented by Mr. Chamberlain: read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GODALMING EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Godalming," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PETERBOROUGH EXTENSION) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Peterborough," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cardiff, Chesterfield, Haverfordwest, Leyton, Spalding, and Wallsend," pre-
sented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH FORCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what. Chinese territory outside the international settlement at Shanghai is now occupied by MS Majesty's forces, and the reason for such occupation; and whether any Chinese territory outside concession areas is occupied by His Majesty's forces in other parts of China?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The Shanghai Defence Force occupy certain posts in the residential district to the west of the international settlement for the purpose of defending the settlement and protecting British lives and property in that district. The only other places where His Majesty's forces are stationed outside a concession area are Nanking, where one company has been posted on the premises of the International Export Company for protective purposes, and Peking, where the Legation Guard is stationed under the terms of the Protocol of 1901.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any immediate prospect of these troops being withdrawn from foreign territory?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Directly there ceases to be any risk of danger, of course they will be.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any threat to Shanghai at the present time?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If there were not the risk, the troops would not be there.

Lieut.-Commander KENWO RTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very often there is a lagging policy and that the troops remain when they are no longer required?

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN BONDS (BRITISH HOLDERS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the default and the repudiation of their public debts by the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North and South Carolina, and the impossibility of making representations to each State, he will make representations to the Federal Government; of the United States of America and point out to them the hardships of the bondholders, most of whom are British subjects?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government, after carefully considering this matter, have decided that no useful purpose would be served by addressing representations to the United States Government in the sense suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my hon. Friend aware that these loans were used for constructive and development purposes in those States, that some £78,000,000 principal and interest is now owing to British bondholders, who are the chief sufferers, and will he not make strong representation on behalf of these bondholders?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am quite well aware of what my hon. and gallant Friend says, but I hope he will not press the matter. At the present moment, I do not think that I can really add anything to the answer.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it not the case that the American Government pressed the Alabama claims, and does my hon. Friend not think that we ought to press these claims in view of the generous way in which this country has met the American claims arising out of the late War?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the hon. Gentleman not think this is another case where he might send troops of occupation to the States for the protection of British interests?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LOAD LINES (ARGENTINE PORTS).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, owing to the almost entire lack of inspection of ships sailing from Argentine ports, serious overloading is habitually practised by non-British owners; and whether, in view of the handicap which this imposes upon British shipowners, he will, in pursuance of the Government's policy of promoting international uniformity upon the question of load lines, open conversations with the Argentine Government on this matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Overloading is said to take place at River Plate ports, but no definite particulars are available as to the extent of the overloading or the nationality of the ships concerned. My attention has been drawn, to a statement that the Argentine Government have issued an order on the subject of load lines, and I am making inquiries about this. When we hear, I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this does not apply to British ships, and that it applies only to foreign ships? My point is, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, that it is such an injustice to British shippers, and will he not, having regard to the seriousness of the matter, as it affects British shipping, make strenuous inquiries into the question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is just the point. It is not yet certain whether British ships are not involved also. That is why I am making inquiries.

Sir R. THOMAS: That is rather a serious insinuation for the hon. Gentleman to make, and will he clear British shipowners on that point as soon as he Can?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I say, we are making inquiries.

VENEREAL DISEASES (MEDICINES).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that it is common for cargo ships to go to sea without any medicines or drugs for the treatment of venereal disease; and if he proposes, by either voluntary
or compulsory method, to see that each ship is supplied with such remedies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The hon. Member has been misinformed. All cargo ships trading to ports abroad are required to carry medicines, including those necessary for the treatment of venereal disease, and ships are inspected from time to time to see that this requirement is carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCIDENT, DEVONPORT HARBOUR.

Mr. DAY: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give full particulars of the collision which happened on 30th March in the harbour at Devonport between a naval pinnace from the Royal Naval Barracks at Keyham and a steam ferry boat, in which the pinnace sank?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Harbour Launch Number 27 left the pontoon at Torpoint on the evening of the 30th of March, proceeded down the river until clear of obstructions, then altered course to port and steadied on a course for the dock at the entrance to Barrack Creek. The ferry was meanwhile crossing from Devonport to Torpoint. The prow of the ferry struck the launch abreast of the funnel. The ferry after going astern went ahead again and enabled most, of the men on the launch to get on board the ferry. Efforts were made to secure the launch to the ferry but without success and the launch sank after a few minutes. There was no loss of life. thanks to the prompt measures taken and assistance rendered by the coxswain and a, warrant officer to a man who was is difficulties in the water.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now registered as unemployed; if he has any estimate of the number of persons working short time: and if he has any estimate of the number of persons unemployed who have been struck off the live registers but have not yet obtained work?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 16th April, 1928, was 1,073,500, but I am unable to say how many are working short time. It is not the practice to strike unemployed persons off the register provided they continue to attend at Employment Exchanges as applicants for work.

Mr. BATEY: Is it not a fact that unemployed men have been struck off the live register, and cannot the hon. Gentleman agree that an inquiry would be useful to ascertain how many men have been struck off?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is impossible to give any estimate of the number of unemployed persons struck off. The answer which I have given says that we do not strike unemployed persons off the register provided they continue to attend the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. KELLY: Does the total of 1,073,000 contain the figures of those who are on what is known as the two months' file?

Mr. BETTERTON: They contain the number of persons registered on the 16th April.

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in these Exchanges there is what is known as the two months' file? Do these figures represent those whose names are in that two months' file.

Mr. BETTERTON: I speak from recollection, but I think contain all the numbers except- those who are on the two months' file.

Mr. KELLY: Are we to understand that there are a hi: of men who are still unemployed and still on the live register who are not drawing unemployment pay?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is an entirely different point. The question asked is as to the number of persons on the register who are applicant, for work. Those in receipt of benefit are, of course, an entirely different number.

Mr. DAY: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the number of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 who registered at the Walworth Road, Borough, Employment Ex-
change for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and the number of these who have been found employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am unable to give separate figures for juveniles of 14 to 16 years. In the case of juveniles of 14 and under 18 years, the average numbers on the register during the 12 months ended 26th March, 1928, were 176 boys and 223 girls, and the total numbers of vacancies filled in the 12 months were 3,133 by boys and 2,974 by girls.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether those figures contain any of the boys and girls who have been on the register for more than six months?

Mr. BETTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down, as I cannot say without notice.

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD.

Mr. DAY: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now received any Reports from the Industrial Transference Board; whether this Board has been able to find work for any applicants; and will he give particulars to the House of the activities of this Board?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a Report from the Industrial Transference Board. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, as my right hon. Friend explained in the House on the 7th March, the Board was not appointed to supersede existing Departments but to secure closer co-ordination of the activities of all existing Departments which may assist transfers.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether a report has been asked for from the Industrial Transference Board?

Mr. BETTERTON: I presume that a report will be made when they have completed their investigations.

Mr. DAY: Has the hon. Gentleman asked for a report of the investigations that have been made up to the present time?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. It is not my business to ask for a report. I can only express my assumption that a report will be made when the investigations are complete.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this Board has found work for any men?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered several times.

MINERS, SOUTH WALES (PUBLIC WORKS).

Sir R. THOMAS: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared immediately to make inquiry to ascertain what public works, such as canal clearance, land drainage, road making, and dump clearance, could advantageously be undertaken in the South Wales coalfield; and whether he will set up an organisation to mobilise unemployed miners upon such public works in the neighbourhood of their own homes?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I am afraid the position in the South Wales coalfield cannot be dealt with by organising temporary employment within the area. Any efforts which are to be permanently advantageous should be directed rather to helping the unemployed men to transfer to other areas and other occupations where there are better prospects of regular work.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Transference Board are only dealing with the younger men, and what is going to become of the older men who are out of employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir. I do not say any such thing. My impression is that they arc dealing with the whole problem.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does not the hon. Gentleman read tile newspapers?

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot say whether the Board have found any work or not or transferred anyone to work, is it not time that they began to find some work for people who have been out of work for so long?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the older men are going to be employed by "Lloyd George"?

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that "Mr. Lloyd George" is their only hope?

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is an hon. Member in order in referring to a Member of this House by his name?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I accept the correction, Mr. Speaker.

JUVENILE LABOUR (REDISTRIBUTION).

Mr. KELLY: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour what replies have been received by his Department to C.E. Circular No. 2, The Redistribution of Juvenile Labour; what steps, if any, are being taken to transfer juveniles from one part of the country to another; and who will be responsible for the supervision of these juveniles in the district where they have been transferred for employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: One or two more replies have been received within the last few weeks to C.E. Circular No. 2, but generally on the first two parts of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to the replies given to his questions on the same subject on the 21st and 26th March. When juveniles are moved to vacancies away from home, the parents' or guardians' consent to the arrangements as regards conditions of employment, lodging accommodation, etc., is first obtained and the Juvenile Advisory Committees, with the help of other voluntary bodies, exercise special supervision in these cases.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the great interest in this question as affecting young people, will the House be given an opportunity of seeing these reports, or, at any rate, be given some idea of what the reports contain?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will consider that point with my right hon. Friend when he returns, and when we have got the complete list.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Miss Jane Puckering, of 22, Swan Lane,. Lockwood, Huddersfield, who for five years was compelled to insure herself against unemployment, though employed as an assistant cook in a works canteen, was sent by the Exchange, when she became unemployed, to an unsatisfactory place as a domestic servant where such tasks as scrubbing floors on Sundays were enforced upon her; and whether, as the Exchange has failed to procure a more suitable position and rules out her application for benefit on
the ground that domestic service is not an insured occupation, he will look into the matter?

BETTERTON: I presume the hon. Member, in the first part of his question, refers to the disallowance of Miss Puckering's claim by the Insurance Officer in April of last year; on that occasion benefit was allowed by the Court of Referees on appeal. In October a further claim was disallowed on the ground that she had left her employment without just, cause, and also because she refused a situation offered to her; she did not appeal on either point. On 18th October employment was found for her and she has not since made a claim. There has been no disallowance on the ground that domestic service is not an insured occupation.

BUILDIND TRADE.

Mr. WELLOCK: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of building workers who were unemployed during the last week of March in 1927 and in 1928, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in Great Britain classified as belonging to the building trades recorded as unemployed was 87,964 at 26th March, 1928, as compared with 71,823 at 21st March, 1927.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has constituted the court of referees for the City of Glasgow under the new Act: and, if so, can be give the names of the chairmen and lay members of the court?

Mr. BETTERTON: The existing Glasgow Court of Referees will be continued without change of area. There will be four chairmen, of whom two will be the existing chairmen, Mr. R. W. Reed and Mr. J. Stewart. There will also be additions to the existing panels of employers' and workers' representatives, but these are not yet complete.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member has 'given me the names of two of the chairmen. Can he state the names of the other two?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, cannot at present, but if the hon. Member will put down a question, perhaps next week. I may be able to tell him.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Member aware that the Act begins to operate on the 19th instant, and that we would like to know the names of the chairmen before it begins to operate?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is true that the Act begins to operate to-morrow, but there will not be any great increase in the volume of work of the courts of referees immediately, and I am sure that we shall be able to keep abreast of it and to see that there is no lack of courts, and that the additional courts are constituted in ample time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it the intention, besides continuing in office the two gentlemen who are at present chairmen, to appoint as chairmen the deputy-chairmen who are now acting in the court of referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member is referring to the appointment of the two extra chairmen, I would rather he postponed that question, because the appointments have not been made, although I hope they will be made shortly.

Mr. MACLEAN: The hon. Member says that the committee expects to keep abreast of the cases that come before it. Are we to understand that any cases coming before the court of referees relating to the circumstances under the old Act will be tried by the old court or by the new court?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think that cases will be brought before the new courts whether they relate to previous cases or new ones, but, if the hon. Member wishes to have a specific answer, perhaps he will put a question on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will it not throw some hardship upon people who will be Out of benefit until the new committee is set up and they can go before the court of referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: Two courts are set up already and will begin to operate at once.

Mr. SHORT: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, he will appoint Courts of Referees which will sit in Wednesbury, Tipton, and Darlaston, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: Courts will sit at the three places mentioned whenever the number of local cases is sufficient.

Mr. SHORT: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of the new Court of Referees appointed to act in the Wednesbury, Tipton, and Darlaston areas, respectively?

Mr. BETTERTON: These three areas are at present under the Walsall Court, of which Mr. Carmichael has been reappointed Chairman. It is proposed, however, in the near future to include Wednesbury and Tipton in the areas of the new Courts which are being established for west Bromwich and Dudley, respectively. The chairmen for these two new Courts have not yet been appointed.

Mr. SHORT: May I take it that these new Courts will sit in Tiptoe and Darlaston?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure, but I think they will. I will let the hon. Member know

Mr. SHORT: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in constituting the Court of Referees to operate in the Wednesbury, Tipton, and Darlaston areas, he has invited the various local employers' and workers' organisations to submit names of persons to act thereon?

Mr. BETTERTON: In accordance with the Unemployment Insurance (Courts of Referees) Regulations, 1920, these appointments are made after consultation with the appropriate local employment committee, which, as the hon. Member is aware, is representative of local employers and workers. It is for the committee to decide how far it will consult associations of employers and employed before making nominations.

Mr. SHORT: Am I to understand that new invitations are being sent out for the formation of these new committees which are likely to operate in Tipton and Wednesbury?

Mr. BETTERTON: Nominations are made by the local employment committees, but I cannot say what steps they take to satisfy themselves. The nominations made by them are practically in all cases accepted.

NEATH, PONTARDAWE AND PORT TALBOT AREAS.

Mr. JENKINS: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of unemployed persons are at present on the register of unemployed for the Neath area. Pontardawe area, and Port Talbot area: and the number on the register for these

—
28th March, 1927.
26th March, 1928.


Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Total.


Neath
1,207
2,067
3,274
2,033
1,943
3,976


Pontardawe
132
86
218
299
427
726


Port Talbot
2,022
1,370
3,392
2,766
1,196
3,962

WOMEN (TRADE BOARD WAGES).

Mr. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed women are being sent by officials of the Employment Exchanges to firms engaged in work which comes under Trade Board rates; that in some cases these women are not paid the Trade Board rates; that when they complain to the Employment Exchange officials they are told if they leave such employment they will be refused benefit for having left their employment; whether he has received any complaints of this character and whether he will issue instructions that where women are sent to such firms the Trade Board rates must be paid, and if this is refused or evaded by the firm and the women leave the work, they will not be penalised by loss of benefit for having left that employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: The Employment Exchanges do not knowingly deal with any vacancies in respect of which less than the statutory minimum rates applicable under the Trade Board Acts are paid, and any such contravention of the Acts coming to their notice is reported to the proper quarter. I am not aware of any cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers and should be glad to have particulars of them.

areas for the last week-end of March,1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Statement:

Mr. MACLEAN: Did the Parliamentary Secretary not receive a complaint regarding a case in which certain women were sent to a particular establishment at which Trade Board rates were not being paid, and when they went back to the Employment Exchange the women were told not to leave the work or they would be penalised by losing benefit, and when the case was taken up, the firm had to pay a large sum in back wages to the women?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of those facts, but I can assure the hon. Member that I am just as anxious as he is that any such case should be investigated, and if he will bring any case to my notice I will take what steps are possible regarding it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING TRADE (WAGES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour what fluctuations in the wages of building workers have taken place since January, 1926?

Mr. BETTERTON: The only general change in rates of wages since January, 1926, was a reduction of ½d. per hour, in February, 1928, under an agreement of the National Joint Council for the Building Industry. Certain towns,
however, have been up-graded at various dates under the grading schemes of the Council, with consequent increases in wages. In some areas also there have been fluctuations in the rate of wages of plasterers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUTCH AIR SERVICE (AMSTER-DAM-BATAVIA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what information he has about the projected air-mail route from Amsterdam to Batavia, Dutch East Indies, by way of British India; whether this mail service will make use of British aerodromes and air stations and, if so, to what extent; and whether the Australian government is expected to link up the Australian air service with this Dutch air line, thus completing an air service for mails from Europe to Australia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have no knowledge of any specific official proposals by the Netherlands authorities for a Dutch air service to Batavia through British India, and I am not, therefore, in a position to make any statement in the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this project is in course of preparation and that unless he hurries up the Dutch will be, flying to the Dutch East Indies before we fly to India?

Sir S. HOARE: I am certainly trying to get the line to India into operation as soon as I can. As to the hon. and gallant Member's question, I cannot add anything to what I have said. I have received no official intimation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have we no Air Attaché in the Netherlands or in any contiguous country who provides the right hon. Gentleman with information?

Sir S. HOARE: I should have thought that the first step must come from the Government concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman must get information from his Air Attaché of important projects like this, which affect the Empire?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what, was the average cost of drugs and appliances per insured person during 1927 in the areas of Welsh insurance committees and in the areas of English insurance committees, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The figures for 1927 were, approximately, 29.5 pence in Wales and 35.1 pence in England.

Sir R. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why England should be so much higher than Wales?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that one of the reasons for the lower cost per head in Wales may be the large number of persons receiving treatment for minor complaints in the Principality.

Mr. MACLEAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether seeing that the National Health Insurance Bill is composed entirely of Amendments to certain Acts of Parliament and in view of the fact that the number of volumes of Statutes in the Libraries of the House of Commons is so limited as to render it impossible for Members to follow the references, he will consider the convenience of Members by arranging for a sufficient supply of the Acts which are proposed to be amended by the Bill being placed either in the Library or in the Vote Office.

Sir K. WOOD: The Bill is in the main a Bill to amend a single Act, the National Health Insurance Act, 1924; and the hon. Member will find a full statement of its effect in the explanatory memorandum already laid before Parliament, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his reply does not meet the difficulty The 1924 Act is only one of the Acts, though the principal Act, which it is proposed to amend. It contains a large number of Sections which are to be amended, and for Members of the House to understand the purport of the proposed Amendments and what the new Act is to be like, it is necessary that the Acts of Parliament should be available to Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a suffi-
cient supply of the 1924 and other Acts in the Vote Office for the information of Members?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member is repeating his former question, to which I have already given a reply.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Member not realise that, after all, the question is not being put to him as an individual, but is a request that he should meet the convenience of Members of the House? Surely Members are entitled to courtesy from the right hon. Member?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you have no power in this matter A number of Members found it very difficult last night to get copies of the Statutes that they needed in order to follow the discussion that will take place on the Bill. Have you no power to see that for the purposes of discussion of the Bill the number of copies of the Acts to be amended is increased?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have powers with regard to the Library and I shall look into the matter.

Mr. NAYLOR: Is it not practicable, when Bills are introduced with numerous references to original Acts, to have the Sections which it is proposed to amend printed with the new Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That lies outside my jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS, RHAYADER.

Mr. JENKINS: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint made at a recent meeting of the board of guardians at. Rhayader regarding the overcrowding in casual wards; and whether he will consider the setting up of an Inter-Departmental Committee to consider the question of vagrancy together with that of unemployment?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; the general inspector for Wales, after a recent visit to this institution, called attention in his report to the inadequacy of the accommodation and to other defects in the casual wards, and my right hon. Friend is in communication with the guardians on the subject. As regards
the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend doubts whether any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of such a Committee as is proposed at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TIN MINES, CORNWALL.

Mr. KELLY: 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received a request to consider the making of a grant to introduce diamond drilling in the tin mines of Cornwall: and, if so, has the proposal been dealt with?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): No. Sir, I have not received any such request.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES).

Mr. JENKINS: 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines what number of collieries have closed down in the South Wales coalfield up to the last available date; and the number of workmen affected from January, 1927?

Commodore KING: Since 1st January, 1927, 192 pits in South Wales, normally employing 30,000 wage-earners, have closed and not re-opened. Of these pits, 81 employed less than 10 men each.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many are permanently uneconomic and how many have been closed temporarily because of the present depression in trade?

Commodore KING: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 29 and 36.
asked (1) the Minister of Transport if he will give the latest figures of t he number of private motor cars and commercial vehicles, respectively, at present in use: (2) the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of taxation raised during the past year from private motor cars and commercial vehicles, respectively?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The approximate number of licences current on the 30th of November, 1927, and the gross amount received in payment for licences during the 12 months from 1st December, 1926, to the 30th November, 1927, the most
recent date and period for which figures are available, will he found, subdivided into various categories, in the White Paper, "Road Vehicles—Great Britain, No. 3," of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MILITARY OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India pays the pensions of military officers on the basis of Is. 9d. to the rupee; and, if so, the reason for this in view of the fact that the fixed rupee rate is now 1s. 6d., and is the rate at which any payments to the Indian Exchequer are made?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The general principle is that military officers' pensions are paid on a sterling basis and are convertible into rupees at the current rate of exchange. There are certain exceptions, but I cannot trace a case in which pensions are paid on the basis quoted. Perhaps the hon. Member will let me have particulars

TIRHA SAHIB OF NABFIA (EDUCATION).

Mr. THURTLE: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is now in a position to give an assurance that the Tikha Sahib of Nabha will not be taken away from his parents and educated in some manner and at some institution contrary to their wishes?

Earl WINTERTON: A condition of the ex-Maharajah's severance in 1923 of his connection with Nabha State was that the Government of India would be responsible for the education of the Tikha Sahib. His mother, who was invited to take the young Maharajah to Nabha for his installation has chosen for the present to remain at Debra Dun with her children where His Highness is at present in charge of a governess. The Maharanee has agreed that his education shall be subject to the general supervision of the Agent to the Governor-General in the Punjab States.

Mr. THURTLE: May I take it that no definite decision as to how this young man's education will be taken in defiance of the wishes of his father anti mother?

Earl WINTERTON: I think I have answered the hon. Member's question very clearly and completely. What I have said is that the ex-Maharajah agreed, at the time when the conditions were imposed in 1923, that the Government of India should be responsible for the education of Tikha Sahib, and I have also told him that at the present time his mother has chosen that he shall remain at Dehra Dun.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether that agreement was not extracted from the ex-Maharajah of Nabha under duress?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. I think that is a most improper suggestion for the hon. Member to make.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Has not the Noble Lord received a strong appeal from the ex-Maharajah himself?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. Such an appeal would not come to me, but to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State, but I am not aware of any such appeal.

EX-MAHARAJAH OF NABHA.

Mr. THURTLE: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reasons which led the Government of India to arrest the ex-Maharajah of Nabha and keep him in detention some thousands of miles away from his home and wife and five young children whether any charges have been communicated to the ex-Maharajah, or if it is intended to inform him why he is imprisoned; and whether any period has been fixed for his imprisonment without trial?

Earl WINTERTON: A condition subject to which the ex-Maharajah of Nabha was permitted in 1923 to sever his connection with Nabha State was that he would remain subject to the obligations of loyalty and obedience to the British Crown and the Government of India which are imposed on the Rulers of Nabha by the Sanad granted to them in 1860. It was also a condition that should the Maharajah fail to fulfil any of the obligations then imposed on him, the Government of India would hold itself free to annul or modify any of these conditions. It was after having satisfied themselves that the ex-Maharajah had repeatedly taken part in disloyal activities since his departure from Nabha and after having clearly warned him of the consequences,
that the Government of India deprived him of his title, rights and privileges as Maharajah, and took the action against him referred to by the hon. Member. He was informed on his apprehension of the reasons for his detention for which no period has been fixed.

Earl WINTERTON: The ex-Maharajah, since the date of his severance in 1923, has actively engaged in a propaganda associated with notorious agitators, and has spent considerable sums on Press campaigns in several Provinces, some of a virulent and untruthful character. In so doing, he has broken the engagement he gave to the Government of India in 1923.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the noble Lord say whether it is proposed to keep this man indefinitely in prison without any trial at all? I must press for an answer because it is contrary to British conceptions of justice.

Earl WINTERTON: I have already answered the hon. Member's question in the last paragraph of my answer:
He was informed on his apprehension of the reasons for his detention, for which no period has been fixed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is the difference between detention and duress?

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask whether the arrest of this man and his detention without any charge being brought against him, has not caused considerable dissatisfaction in India, especially in the Sikh community, of which he is the reputed leader?

Earl WINTERTON: The only dissatisfaction caused in India has been among the notorious and disloyal agitators.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES.

Mr. KELLY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the result of his investigation into the effects of artificial silk manufacture on the health of those who are employed in factories engaged on such work

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I stated the results of the investigation made by the Factory Department in the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on the 15th and 22nd March, and I have nothing to add to the particulars then given. A further inquiry is taking place.

Mr. KELLY: I am glad to hear that further inquiries are to be made. May I ask whether there is any likelihood of these 'being completed and a report presented at an early date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Mr. Jackson, the Deputy-Chief Inspector of Factories, has gone to Golborne and will open an inquiry at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE INDUSTRIAL MUSEUM.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 35.
asked the Home Secretary what is the cost to date of the Home Office Industrial Museum; the number of the staff employed; the total salaries paid to theca; and the number of persons that have visited the museum since it was opened?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The cost of the building, which was not erected by the Home Office, has amounted to about £20,000, of which over £17,000 was spent before the War. It has been met out of the sum provided under Section 9 of the Finance Act; 1908, for the erection of public buildings at Westminster. The sums expended from the Home Office Vote in the collection of the exhibits and for other purposes, amounted to £1,000 up to 1916, and £2,314 between 1921 and the 31st March last. Most of the exhibits have been loaned or presented. Three attendants are employed, and their weekly salaries amount to £8 12s. 1d. The number of visitors recorded from the beginning of December last up to 14th April is 4,016.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this museum fulfils any useful purpose?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I not only think, I am absolutely satisfied that it fulfils a very useful purpose indeed. A large number of employers and trade union representatives have been and have expressed great satisfaction at seeing the latest methods of "safety first" in factories and other works.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (PURCHASES).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the stores and other supplies purchased by the Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the Crown Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories during the years 1925, 1926 and 1927; and what percentage of these were the produce or manufacture of this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The value of the stores purchased and shipped by the Crown Agents for the Colonies in each of the years specified was: 1925, £7,154,132; 1926, £6,931,267; 1927, £8,726,783. Of these values about 99 per cent. represented British goods.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIJI (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any change has been made in the composition of the Legislative Council in the Colony of Fiji?

Mr. AMERY: The following changes are to be effected in the near future:—

(a) the number of European elected members is to be reduced from seven to six
(b) the number of native members is to be increased from two to three; and
(c) provision is to be made for three Indian members.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make
a statement with regard to the position of Irish civil servants under Article 10 of the Treaty, in view of the announcement of His Majesty's Government to allow legislation to be passed to nullify the decision of the Privy Council, or whether, in view of the constitutional questions that arise and the interest that is taken in this question, he will now give a day to debate this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I understand that this subject will be debated in another place in the near future, and I prefer awaiting the result of that Debate before giving a definite answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as the days go by these unfortunate people are without pay or pension and are suffering serious hardships: does he not think it is a matter of great urgency to tell them what the position is?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the Prime Minister aware that many hon. Members are receiving daily communications from some of these ex-civil servants, who have been most loyal servants of the British Government, and will lie do what he can to expedite the Debate in another place?

The PRIME MINISTER: That urgency is precisely the reason for my answer. by hon. and gallant Friend wants a discussion in which a plain statement of policy and reasons might he given, and this can be given in another place. When I gave my answer before Easter, I was not aware that a Debate was to take place in another place. It is perfectly obvious that at the moment when we are debating the Budget it will be quite impossible to find time in this House, and it is a fortunate circumstance that there is time in another place.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is the Prime Minister in order in referring to a Debate about to take place in another place; and, as this deals with a purely financial question, is it not a matter of Privilege, and that, therefore, an answer should be given in this House irrespective of any Debate in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER: As to the first point, that is a matter of business, and the arrangement of the time of the House has always been in the hands of the
Prime Minister, who is entitled to do what he thinks best. As to the second point, it remains to be seen whether any effective action is taken. If it is, then no doubt it becomes a matter of finance and will no doubt originate in this House.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the Prime Minister say whether there will be an opportunity for a Debate in this House after the Debate has taken place in the other House?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will be a question whether there will be a general desire for a Debate in this House after the Debate in the other place.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH TRUST LIMITED.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY (for Colonel WEDGWOOD): 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the directors of the Commonwealth Trust have concluded to agree with the Government; and, if not, when he intends to introduce the promised legislation?

Mr. AMERY: I am not yet in a position to make any statement, but I hope that it may be possible to arrive at an agreed settlement of the matter.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT MILLING.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to encourage the production of wheat by compulsory milling of certain proportions of home-grown wheat by millers.
I am sure that all Members of the House realise the gravity of the plight of agriculture, particularly arable agriculture, and I am sure that any Measure which is not, contentious will have the support of all parties in the House. The object of this Bill is to encourage greater production of wheat. It would increase employment in agriculture, it would make the country more self-supporting, and it would build up a reserve of wheat. It. would increase the demand for English wheat. It would not and does not entail any payment of subsidy by the State. Arable agriculture is, of course, the largest labour-employing section of agriculture, and anything that we can do to give employment at this time of lack of
employment, I am sure, will meet with the approval of the whole community. In my opinion the only possible way to tackle the agricultural problem is from the wheat side. In the year 1918 we had 2,636,000 acres growing wheat, but in the last nine years the figure has declined to 1,706,000 acres, a drop of nearly 1,000,000 acres in this one cereal. That 1,000,000 acres drop represents employment for nearly 100,000 men in agriculture. Therefore, it is important that something should be done to increase wheat production and to absorb people into this great industry.
In 1918 we imported 2,800,000 tons of wheat, and last year the importation reached the alarming figure of 5,500,000 tons. I feel sure that, with the depression in agriculture, a Bill such as I seek to introduce would be of some use. The Bill has for its object the securing of a definite proportion of the milling market for wheat in the country, and' if the Bill be passed the farmer will have a basis of support which he has not now. The farm labourer will also have greater security of employment and more regular employment than he has to-day, because the farmers will have this market upon which to fall back. I am satisfied that in no way could the Bill increase the price of flour. Years ago the flour mills of the country were situated in and around the country districts where the corn was grown. In modern times the tendency has been to move the mills to the ports, and the difficulties of transportation have driven the British farmer further and further out of the milling market. My Bill, which entails no subsidy by the State, will not increase the price of flour, hut will give greater security to the farmer and farm worker, and I hope the House will favourably consider the Measure.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just spoken very vigorously and tersely for the agricultural labourers. I find it necessary to speak on behalf of the flour-millers, and the labourers working in the flour-mills, of whom there are a great many in my constituency. This Measure would injure flour-milling in this country. It is true that the Government are not asked for a subsidy, but the millers would have to subsidise the farmers if this Measure went through. If you insist on
the millers taking a certain proportion of English wheat, and if you do not regulate the price—and I am certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not propose to do that—then the millers can be charged just what the farmers choose to "soak" them for. The result of that would be that more flour will come into this country in sacks and there will be less milling in the ports and cities. A further result will be that the price of offals will go up and thus you will hit the farmer also. By a Measure of this kind you make things no better in the long run for the agricultural community. These pettifogging proposals, dealing piecemeal with one trade at the expense of another, without tackling the great basic difficulties of agriculture, will never do any good to farming in this country.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about the million acres of land which have gone out of cultivation. That is only too true, and there are 100,000 agricultural labourers out of work in consequence. I have again and again begged and implored the Conservative Government to do something in the matter but they will do nothing. It is absurd to bring in these pin-pricking Measures to try to cure a great evil of this kind. It is like putting a plaster on a cancer. The flour-milling industry is going through a very hard time, and there is a great deal of unemployment in that industry. From the narrow point of view of the wheat farmer, there may be something to be said for this Bill, but we have to look at the matter from the point of view of the community as a whole, and I hope the House will not give a First Reading to this Measure. I make a final appeal. I see the Secretary of State for War in his place. The Government themselves do not use English wheat for the forces. They do not use English wheat for the prisons and workhouses and other Government institutions. They could do a little to help the farmer by using British wheat, but they will not do it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would address himself to that side of the question, and try to ginger up his own Front Bench Members, he would do a great deal more good than by taking up the time of the House with Measures of this kind.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Major Braithwaite, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Dixey, Mrs. Philipson, and Mr. Forrest.

HOME-GROWN WHEAT MILLING BILL,

"to encourage the production of Wheat by compulsory milling of certain proportions of Home-Grown Wheat by millers," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to he read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.

Order for Committee read.

The following Notices of Motion appeared upon the Order Paper:—
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses."—[Captain Bourne.]
As an Amendment to Captain Bourne's proposed Instruction:—In line 3, at the end, to add the words:
but so that in the case of Parliamentary elections the maximum scale shall not exceed fivepence per registered elector for county constituencies and threepence halfpenny per registered elector for borough constituencies."—[Sir Henry Cautley.]
That is be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions dealing with the enfranchisement of incorporated companies."—[Mr. Tinne.]
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power insert provisions relating to the maximum scale of election expenses."—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]

Mr. SPEAKER: It may be for the convenience of the House if, at the outset, I deal with the various Notices appearing on the Order Paper. The first Instruction which is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) I propose to call. It is a matter of some doubt whether the Committee would be able to entertain this question without an Instruction, and I consider it is a question which is cognate to the Bill. I shall not be able to call the Amendment to that Instruction standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) because that Amendment proposes to put a mandate on a Committee of the Whole House which is a proposal we could never entertain.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will it be convenient, Sir, if I make an observation on that point now or at a later stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: Now

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The observation which I have to make is that I considered this matter before I put the Amendment down, and I would like to submit to you, before you finally decide the point, that there is really no mandate involved in this Amendment. The Amendment only seeks to put a limitation at one end, and leaves the matter open at the other end. The Committee cannot go beyond a certain figure, but apart from that they can fix any figure which they choose. Therefore, I submit, with some confidence, that the Amendment does not contradict the principle which you have laid down of not placing a mandate on the Committee. It leaves them a very wide discretion. Though it fetters their discretion at one end, it leaves them free at the other end and does not, I suggest, conflict with the principle which you have stated.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that half a mandate is as bad as a whole mandate from the point of view of our practices. With regard to the next Instruction which is in the name of the hon. Member for the Wavertree Division (Mr. Tinne) I do not see my way to call it, because I think that the matter with which it deals is not cognate to the Bill. I have received a manuscript proposal handed in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in two forms. In the first form it is suggested as an Amendment to the first Instruction, namely, that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I cannot accept that, because it is in the nature of a new Instruction. Then it is submitted in a second form as a new Instruction, but that is out of order, for lack of notice.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses.
I make no apology to the House for moving this Instruction. The question of election expenses is one which appeals to all Members of this House, in what-ever part they may sit, and I feel that on this occasion we ought to have an opportunity of stating our views on that subject and of considering any points relating to it which may be raised in the course of the Debate. Before I state
the reasons why I ask the House to assent to this Instruction may I be permitted to explain what its effect will be if carried? You, Mr. Speaker, have mentioned that an Instruction is probably necessary, and I would only like to say that this Instruction does not commit the Committee to anything, but merely empowers them to consider, on their merits, the various proposals which hon. Members will find on the Order Paper. They will not be bound, if this Instruction be carried, to accept any one of these proposals. It will be open to the Committee to make any Amendments they please, to adopt new proposals altogether, or to reject all of these proposals. The only object of this Instruction is to insure that this very important matter should be discussed on this occasion, and I venture to think that there are many practical reasons why, having increased the electorate by no less than 5,000,000 people, we should be entitled to consider what effect that is going to have on Parliamentary candidatures in the future.
The present scale of election expenses was, I believe, arrived at by the Committee which sat under the Chairmanship of your predecessor, Lord Ullswater. The scale was fixed after careful consideration of the size of the constituencies created under the 1918 Act, and due allowance was made for any increase which those constituencies might be expected to undergo owing to increases of population. In this Bill, we are at one fell swoop adding 25 per cent. to the electorate, and that cannot be regarded, I venture to submit, as a normal growth. It is an abnormal growth. We are doing what Parliament has done before in the history of the nation; we are increasing the electorate very largely at one moment, and I think it should be open to the Committee to consider whether a maximum fixed with a view to an electorate of one size ought not to be reconsidered when that electorate is very largely augmented.
The Committee may think that no case is made out by those who wish to alter the maximum, in which case it need not do anything or insert any provision in the Bill in this connection, or, it may, on the contrary, think that a case is made out for revision; but I submit to the House that the Committee should have the chance of hearing all the arguments both for and against these pro-
posals. It would be out of order if I were to attempt to deal now with any of these proposals on their merits, but I think I may say that all of the proposals which are at present on the Order Paper have this feature in common, that they all propose some form of reduction, and I submit that there are, in all parts of the House, a good many hon. Members who feel that the election expenses at present constitute a heavy burden and who wish to discuss the question.
Another reason why I think the House should pass the Instruction and give the Committee power to deal with this matter is that, in all probability, no Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing election laws for many years to come. With the sole exception of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, which arose owing to a certain election petition in my own constituency, Parliament has always considered electoral questions conjointly with an increase of the electorate, and the reason for that is very obvious. Questions dealing with registration, election expenses, the machinery of elections, and election laws, although they are, without doubt, of very great interest to us as Members of Parliament and to those who hope one day to enter this House, because they are things that vitally affect our interests, are not so vitally interesting to others. The public care little or nothing about them. They occupy of necessity a good deal of Parliamentary time, because they are questions which are of such interest to Members of this House, but the jam which has hitherto persuaded Governments to swallow the powder of providing the necessary Parliamentary time has been the popular demand for an alteration of the franchise. When this Bill gets on the Statute Book, there will be very little jam left in the larder to persuade any future Government to give up Parliamentary time to discussing these rather dull, if important, subjects, and I feel that this Bill is perhaps the last occasion for many years to come on which this question can be raised. On that ground also, I would urge the House to accept the Instruction and give the Committee power to discuss it, without necessarily binding the Committee to accept any of the proposals that may be put before it.
The last, but not the least, ground is that of the public interest. I submit that
election expenses are a very great deterrent to many who would like to enter public life in this country, and who would do valuable work if they could. If we look at the past, before 1911 we find that the majority of Parliaments lasted some five years. I have not worked out the exact figures. Some ran longer and a few much shorter, but five years was not an unreasonable expectation for the life of Parliament. I think he would be a very brave man who would prophesy that, when this Parliament comes to an end, any of its immediate successors are likely to run for that period or anything like it, and when people have to face the prospect of very heavy election expenses, not at intervals of live years, but perhaps at intervals of one year or even less, the prospects are only too gloomy for any man who has not very considerable private means or who is not financed from some outside source. It is not in the public interest that entry into public life should be restricted either to those who are fortunate in this world's goods or to those who happen to be supported by some association or federation, which pushes them into Parliament for its own ends. I cannot think that either of those two things is for the good of the country, and it is because I feel that The Committee ought to have an opportunity of discussing these matters, of weighing the different proposals, and of considering whether election expenses should remain as they are or be changed, that I have put down this Instruction. I hope that, as this is a matter which merely concerns Members of the House and is in no sense a party question, if a Division should be taken on this Instruction, it will be left to a free vote of the House.

Captain FRASER: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe myself that a majority of the Members of this House will desire that the cost of elections should not increase with the increase in the electorate, but, if the majority do not desire that, I think at least they will desire that the subject should be discussed. The many conversations which have taken place, and the new Clauses which have already appeared on the Paper, indicate that Members of all parties are interested in the subject. I probably should be out of order if I were to dis-
cuss the details of those new Clauses, but I hope I may be in order if I show what would be the disadvantages of refusing this Instruction and of compelling the provisions which are now in the Bill to become law.
For the purpose of illustrating what are the provisions in the Bill, may I call the attention of the House to two average constituencies? For the purpose of finding out what is an average constituency, I have added together the total electorate in all the boroughs in the country and the total electorate in all the counties in the country. In the boroughs, I find that, when that total is divided by the number of the boroughs, an electorate of 36,640 is found to he the average number. In seeking for an average borough constituency, I have found that the great division of Plymouth is one which comes within a dozen of that number, and if the conditions in that constituency are examined as affected by the Bill this is what appears. The present electorate is 36,626, or very few under the average, and the cost at the present rate is £763. The increase under the Bill, at the rate of 25 per cent., will bring the electorate up to 45,782 and the cost to £954. In the counties, the average constituency, I find, contains 35,148 electors, and there is, curiously enough, a constituency which has exactly that number, namely, the Pontefract division. In that constituency, this will be the result of the Bill. The present cost on that electorate of £1,025 will be increased, when the electorate goes up to 43,935, to a sum of £1,281. There is an increase of nearly £200 in the average borough, and an increase of over £200 in the average county.
Perhaps I may be permitted to mention, in passing, that any observation that my hon. Friends who happen to represent those constituencies may make will, I hope, not weigh with the House, particularly because their constituencies are chosen, not in relation to themselves, but because they happen to fall upon the average figures. The disadvantage of leaving the matter as it is, and refusing this Instruction, appears to me to be that you will limit the field from
which candidates can be chosen. You will either have to choose candidates who can afford this increased amount, or you will have to increase the number of candidates who require assistance. I am of the opinion that it is in the national interest not to increase the number of those to whom £100 or £200 makes no difference, and not to increase those who must owe some allegiance to some sort of outside organisation. If it were possible to secure a Parliament in which every Member is independent, or dependent at least only upon his constituency, and not upon some other organisation, you would have your ideal. I do not pretend that that ideal is attainable, but I do submit that the extent to which you increase the cost of a Parliamentary life, you decrease the opportunity of choosing the best candidates from the widest field.
I turn to another aspect of this matter. It may be stated by those who will seek to refuse this Instruction, that the present figures and the figures proposed under the Bill are the minimum which is necessary, not on any party grounds, but on national grounds, for the information of the electors. That the electors should be well informed is very important, and it may be argued that, this amount, and no smaller amount, is necessary to secure that this enormous electorate is fully informed. May I point to one or two facts in relation to this subject of the necessary minimum which is required, or is supposed to be required, for informing the electorate. In the last three elections of 1922, 1923 and 1924, there was a considerable and progressive increase in the size of the electorate, but there was a steady and progressive decrease in the amount of money spent by members. It must, therefore, appear that they did not find that the money was necessary, or it may be argued that three elections in so short a time deprived them of necessary money; but my hon. Friends, at least, cannot suggest that the electorate was ill-informed, having regard to the result of the last election. It may be said that to decrease the power of the candidate to put his views before the electorate is to increase the power of the Press to sway elections. The Government have wisely taken a step which will, to some extent, alter the balance between the newspaper
Press and the politicians, for it has become possible, if parties will take advantage of it, for controversy to be broadcast. There is, and can be, no excuse for the electorate being ill-informed if proper advantage of modern inventions be taken, for not only has wireless come to enable the human voice to speak to the millions, but loud speakers have come to make it possible to speak to many more thousands with one voice in one constituency than was previously possible.
I would most sincerely plead with the members of my own party to be indulgent in regard to a matter which some, at any rate, are a little unable to understand. They may say, and some have said to me, "Why raise this matter? If things are left alone, an advantage will accrue to us which we can ill afford to lose." I hope and believe that those who take that view are a small minority of this House. I cannot feel that, either from the national point of view, or from the party point of view, the best interest is served by perpetuating an advantage of that sort. A temporary advantage which some individuals may have in some parts, is as nothing by comparison with the ultimate advantage to the party, if it gets the right men to come in and serve it; and I would plead with hon. Members on my side of the House to believe that to place a gag upon free and full discussion of a matter which, it has been shown, Members of all parties desire to discuss, will be to suggest, and to suggest improperly, that we are anxious to keep the rules of the game in such a state as will give us an undue advantage against the other side. I do not believe that, ultimately, that will be to the advantage of our party. I believe that the rules of the game should be discussed without party views prevailing, and that, however hot the controversy may be in the game itself, there should be sought some measure of agreement in regard to the rules which govern it.
My last remark is to ask the House to realise that to give this Instruction is to commit themselves merely to a free discussion of every possible method whereby the present considerable increase may be avoided. It commits them to nothing more. Unless and until the deed proves that I am wrong, I do not believe that such a free discussion will
be refused, and the gag put on in a matter which is of such very great importance.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I was rather surprised to gather, from observations made by both Mover and Seconder of this Instruction, that there was objection to it from certain quarters of the House. It is an Instruction which I should have imagined would have passed through the House with unanimous support. I do not know what the attitude of the Government is likely to be upon this question, but I would like to remind the Home Secretary of that part of the pledge of the Prime Minister which was to the effect that he was anxious that a Measure of this sort should not be regarded as an ordinary party controversial question, but should be carried through the House as far as possible by general agreement. Therefore, if the Home Secretary is anxious to conform to the terms of that pledge, I think he will, on behalf of the Government, give support to this Instruction. I should not, I suppose, be in order in entering into detailed arguments in support of this Instruction, but I should like to be permitted to say this. There was a very important point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), namely, that it is not likely that in the immediate future the question of electoral reform will be raised again in this House, and, therefore, this provides the only opportunity which we are likely to have for some time of dealing with this important matter of election expenses. It might be urged that it is outside the general purpose of this Bill. I do not think that is so at all, because an increase in the electorate does involve this question of election expenses, and, seeing that the election expenses are based upon the number of the electorate, there must be, when an increase takes place, an opportunity to spend a larger amount of money than is possible in present circumstances, and I do not think it could be argued that a comparatively slight reduction in the figure per head allowable for expenses would lessen the opportunities which the candidate has of putting his views fully before the electors.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded this Instruction has evidently been making some very close investigations into the average size of the electorate and the cost of election expenses returned by candidates, and this calculation shows that many of the candidates do not spend or, at any rate, do not return the full expenditure, which may not always be the same thing. At any rate, they do not return the maximum expenditure, and, speaking from my own knowledge, I would say that many Members of the party with which I am associated do not spend anything approaching this sum. I have fought eight or nine contested Parliamentary elections, and I doubt whether in a single case—and every penny expended has always been returned—I have spent half of the permissible legal amount. But the point at issue in this Instruction is that this would give to the Committee an opportunity of discussing this question, and I cannot believe that any objection can be urged by the Home Secretary against permitting the Committee to have that opportunity. If the Government have some objection to lowering the amount per head of the electors, then that can be stated in Committee.
I do not know whether I am entitled to appeal to hon. Members opposite, but may I ask them to remember what the hon. and gallant Member who seconded this Instruction said, namely. that if there be opposition to the proposal to reduce the amount permissible under the law, the natural construction that will he placed on that opposition will be that wealthy people are anxious to limit the opportunities and to lessen the chances of poorer candidates. That, I think, was a very strong point made by the hon. and gallant Member, and when hon. Members opposite vote upon this Instruction, I trust that they will bear that in mind. I do hope, therefore—and I speak for all my friends—that the Home Secretary will not, on behalf of the Government, oppose this Instruction. Let the Instruction be carried, and then we can debate it on its merits in Committee.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, I was a little surprised to hear the suggestion made by those who have brought this Instruction before the House that there was likely to be any
hesitation on the Government side in accepting it. I still think it cannot be so. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) founded his expression of astonishment on the declaration of the Prime Minister that he hoped to have some conference arranged between the different parties on the subject, but may I point out that there is a second and more recent reason for believing that the Government cannot possibly be intending to oppose this Instruction. I have been away from the country till recently, and, therefore, perhaps, have read the Parliamentary Debates with more attention than those who have been here. On Thursday, 29th March, the Prime Minister wound up the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I see that he referred to this Instruction then standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and he said
that the Government would be pleased if that Instruction could be considered by the COMM ittee."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; col. 1472, Vol. 215.]
It cannot be considered by the Committee unless at this stage, with the approval of the Government, the Instruction be passed. I would, therefore, draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister has always intended this Instruction to be carried. I think the Home Secretary will see that my reference is right, and, no doubt, he has that passage fully in mind, particularly as he has based his defence of the Measure itself, in the presence of some criticism on his own side, on his determination at all times and in all places to see that whatever the Prime Minister has said is literally fulfilled. While the necessary inquiries are being made as to whether that is correctly reported, may I point out that there is one other large consideration which, if this Instruction be passed, may be well worthy of consideration by the Committee.
I will not repeat the calculations made by the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser)—calculations which were presented to the House, if he will allow me to say so, with wonderful clearness and accuracy, and which show that the physical disability from which he suffers does not
in the least degree disqualify his full competence to play his part amongst this Assembly. But without repeating the arithmetical argument, may I point out this further consideration? It perhaps, a question whether one ought to determine the amount of legitimate expenditure by multiplying a certain number of pence by the number of registered voters, but, at any rate, if you are considering whether there is a justification for further maximum expenditure because you are adding more women to the list of voters, it is material to ask oneself what is the nature of the additional expenditure supposed thereby to be warranted. The area of the constituency is to remain the same. I should think that the number of the committee rooms will not be increased. I do not suppose anyone is going to have two agents instead of one. I can conceive that there will be another clerk or two, but the number must substantially remain the same. Meetings I should have thought were not going to be multiplied because of this addition to the electorate. The difference is going to be, that instead of a number of the younger women being there and taking whatever interest they do take in the proceedings, without being able to influence the ultimate result, they will now be able to influence the ultimate result, and I should have thought that, as regards the greater part of the expenditure, it will not be affected by the circumstance that you add this new set of people to the register.
There is a second head of expenditure, of course, which will be affected, but it is, in point of money, a much smaller head of expenditure. It is the expenditure which is classified, I think, in the statutory term as "printing, stationery, postage and miscellaneous." No doubt if you increase the number of constituents, you will need more copies of your election address, and postage and stationery will become larger items. I am not wishing to argue the point. I am only pointing out that these, after all, are very small matters as compared with the main heads of expenditure, and, consequently, if the House thinks it right to give this Instruction to the Committee, the Committee may find that there are very strong reasons why, though the electorate should be enlarged the authorised expenditure should not be increased. I do not desire at all to
argue the matter further, but to say, on behalf of myself and my friends, that we warmly support the Instruction.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I cannot think that there can be anything in the suggestion that the Minister does not mean to support this Instruction, and I was rather suprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) did not read a little more of the Prime Minister's statement, because, referring to the Instruction of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), he said:
that the Government would be pleased if that Instruction could be considered by the Committee.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman stopped there. The Prime Minister, however, went on to say:
and I am perfectly prepared to consider impartially this matter in consultation with the whole House, because we think this is a point on which all Members should be heard, especially on the question of expenses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1928; col. 1472, Vol. 215.]
On that, I think, the Minister must agree that he really must support what, I venture to think, is the general feeling of the House on this Instruction. As one who has gone through 10 contested elections, I think I can speak with some little authority on this particular matter, and I say that a great part of the expenditure now allowed, as far, at any rate, as county elections are concerned, is really extravagance and waste. We do ask that, once and for all, seeing that the franchise is to be put on an absolutely democratic basis, we should put the whole matter as regards expenditure on an equally democratic basis. The average increase in each constituency will be something about 25 per cent. Roughly, the average number of electors in a constituency is 45,000, and the average increase will be 9,000. Taking the county division of Sevenoaks, because we are adding these 9,000 women to each electorate, there will be an average, if the law stands as it is, of £262 10s. added to the expenses of every candidate. Is there any possible reason for allowing that because the electorate has been increased? Whenever in the past the franchise has been altered substantially, the question of election expenses has been gone into. In 1918, when the last addition was made to the electorate, the ex-
penses were reduced. The expenses of the returning officer were taken off the candidate and put on to the State, and the 7d. and the 5d. were fixed at that time. This, surely, is the proper time to have a revision.
I regret that the Rules of Order have prevented consideration of my Amendment which would have left the extreme limit, beyond which a candidate could not go to the decision of a vote of this House, when every member could have exercised his vote, which, I venture to think, was what was in contemplation by the Prime Minister, according to his words which I have just read. In the circumstances I think it would be better to let the whole matter be referred to the Committee; and I would make only this one other observation to show how a great part of the expenses allowed at the present time are wasted. What will be the good of all these posters that we publish when we are going to have some 28,000,000 persons taking part in the election? What good does the money wasted on posters do? The last figure I wish to give to the House will show the effect of the addition of all these thousands of sevenpences in the case of the Romford Division, a county division. At present it contains 72,000 electors, and it will contain 90,000 electors, and the expenses at 7d. per head of the electors will be £2,625, which is absolutely prohibitive for a poor man.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William-Joynson-Hicks): The point with regard to this Instruction is a very small one, and one which, I think, can easily be dealt with by the House. I do not propose-to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser), or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) into detailed figures. The only question which is before us now is whether the House should be allowed when in Committee to debate this question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has quoted, I need hardly say with his usual accuracy—and we are glad that he comes back to give his accurate talents to the service of the House—the statement made by the Prime Minister in his Second Reading speech on this Bill. It is quite clear that the Prime
Minister did say in that speech that the matter was one which should be discussed in consultation with the whole House; but there was an earlier pledge of the Prime Minister's than that. As long ago as April, 1927, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders) asked a supplementary question in the House, inquiring whether in framing the Bill the Prime Minister would take into consideration the question of redrafting the scale of election expenses. The Prime Minister replied that it was very early to enter upon the consideration of those points, but added:
I think that is a perfectly fair question, and it is one which I should certainly desire should be discussed." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1927; col. 359, Vol. 205.]
I need hardly say that the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government do desire that this matter should be discussed, and we do not intend to ask the House to vote against this Instruction. That being so, I hope the House will accept the Instruction, in order that the Bill, which is so very largely a generally accepted Measure, may be proceeded with. The discussion on this subject will then take place in Committee, and it will be for those who desire a reduction to make out their case. Upon that, of course, the Government will have the right to express their views and to state such facts as they desire put forward for the consideration of the Committee. I do not propose to do that at the moment, because it would be out of order, and I therefore merely say, in accordance with the pledges which have been made by the Prime Minister, and, I think, in accordance with the general view of the House, that I am willing that the House should now pass the Instruction, so that we may get on with the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to insert provisions dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

The CHAIRMAN: I think it will be for the general convenience that I should say something now as to the general
limits of order in the discussion of this Measure, and, as the matter is highly technical, I have, for the sake of greater accuracy, put my Ruling in writing. The Bill has a very restricted Title. It is not a. Bill "to assimilate and amend" but merely "to assimilate." Now "assimilation" can be brought about either by raising the lesser to the greater, by reducing the greater to the lesser, or by making them meet at some intermediate point. Therefore, it would be in order to move that no man should vote till he is 30 or that all men and women should vote at 25, but it would not be in order to move that all men and women should vote at 20 or that none should vote till 31. Similarly, it would not be in order to move to deprive women of any qualification they now have, or to give men and women some entirely new qualification of which there is no example in the present law. Thus, it would be in order to move that men shall not vote in respect of both a business and a residential qualification, because that would be to assimilate their position to that of women; but it would not be in order to deprive men and women of their existing right to vote in respect of a residential and university qualification, as that has nothing to do with assimilation. Equally it would not be in order to seek to give new qualifications, as, for example, in respect of having a family or having performed war service. Lastly, of course, except so far as covered by Instruction, it would not be in order to amend the general electoral law. With regard to the Amendments on the Paper, the first three deal with the same matter, and I propose to select that standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir A. Sprot).

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. Does the very lucid document you have just read out mean to us who are not lawyers that plural voting can remain part of the Bill and that we shall have no right to attempt to alter it in this Bill?

The CHAIRMAN: No. I think I made that clear. As to residential and business qualifications, an amendment will be in order, but it will not be in order as regards the university qualification.

Mr. JONES: That is one of the anomalies of the present system.

CLAUSE 1.—(Assimilation, of parliamentary franchise of men and women.)

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after the word "full," to insert the word electoral."
I am very pleased to find that the Amendment I have put down collies within your description of order. It deals with what I regard as a very interesting point and one which has been debated a good deal outside this House. I should like at the start to say that I am quite friendly to the principle of this Bill. I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, because I have always recognised that the inequality which remained in consequence of the restrictions put on the women's vote in 1918 could not permanently be maintained. I am not against the leading principles of the Bill at all, and I only seek to try to improve the provisions of the Measure. In order that my Amendment may be quite clear, I should like to read the Amendment which I propose, and also a new Clause which comes afterwards, and which explains it. Just now I am moving to insert the word "electoral." On page 312 hon. Members will find a new Clause standing in my name and that of other hon. Members and reading as follows:
A person, for the purposes of this Act, shall be deemed to be of full electoral age when he or she has attained the age of twenty-five years, or if he is a person whose name has appeared on the, register of voters for any constituency prior to the passing of this Act.
It will be seen that I am not proposing to disfranchise anybody, not proposing to deprive any person of his vote. When, subsequently, we come to the new Clause it will be possible for hon. Members to propose any other age than 25. I would also like to make this further remark with regard to that, that it would be quite possible after a year or two to remove the restriction or to modify the restriction which I am seeking to impose. This proposal to limit the age is a popular one in many quarters. It is very popular outside this House. Let me give my experience in my own constituency. On very many occasions, both at party meetings and at public meetings, I have asked for an informal show of hands upon this particular subject—"Hands up for 25"
and "Hands up for 21," and I can assure the Home Secretary that in every ease there were hardly any hands at all for the 21. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!] It is rather ominous from the point of view of this party that those cheers should come from the other side, but, however that may be, I am only relating the facts. I have tested the opinions of those who support me, and there is no doubt whatever as to their opinion, and the keenest of all in rejecting the proposed age of 21 are the women. The women seem quite to have made up their minds on that point. I submit that my proposal is a good one, and, if there is any danger in the extension of the franchise to women, my Amendment will tend to modify it. I do not think my Amendment is contrary to any of the pledges which have been given by the Prime Minister. So far as my investigations have gone, I think the Prime Minister pledged himself to give the franchise to women upon the same terms as men. I take that to be the object of the Bill, and I am entirely in favour of that principle.
I will now deal with another important matter, although it is not the chief argument in favour of my Amendment. I would like to remind the Committee of what has just taken place in dealing with the Instruction which had for its object the limitation of expenses at the next election. May I point out that my proposal will have a similar effect, or at any rate it will tend in the same direction. If I may supplement what has already been so well put by other hon. Members upon that point, I would like to remind the House that there will be a tremendous increase in the number of electors at the next election, quite independently of this Bill, owing to the large number of houses which have been erected in various districts. In my own constituency, I believe the increase will amount to 10,000 or even 15,000 extra voters from that cause alone.
On the top of that, this Measure proposes to add a large number of women to the voters' roll. We should consider not only the expenses of the candidates, but also the expense of making up the voters' roll. I am a county councillor, and I know that already those in charge of the register are asking far permission to engage new clerks because they anticipate a very large increase in the register both
in the counties and boroughs as well as in the Parliamentary constituencies, in view of the large increase which this Bill is going to cause in the number of voters. I am endeavouring to make that number a little smaller. That is my first argument, but it is by no means my chief argument. I am going to ask the House to declare that it is desirable, when people are to be placed upon the roll, and when we are making up the roll or making laws with regard to those who are to have the privilege and the responsibility of a vote, that we should consider whether some experience of life is not desirable.
As a matter of fact, we are not now proceeding upon that principle. We do not make any inquiries, and we give the vote to everybody who comes along at a certain age. We hope that the result will be good, but there is a tremendous risk, as everybody will admit, and nobody can foresee the result of what we are now proposing. Under these circumstances, I submit that it is well for us to be prudent, and if possible we ought to limit the vote to those who have had some experience of life, and who have qualified themselves in some way to have a voice in the government of the country, and also in the Government of our great Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear hon. Members opposite cheer that remark. In order that I may illustrate my point, I will take the case of the Prodigal Son. He was evidently just coming of age when he said to his father, "Give me the goods that belong to me," and he took all the goods that were assigned to him and went off into a far country. We know what was the subsequent history of the Prodigal Son, and I have no doubt that with the experience he gained between the age of 21 and 25 when he returned home he became as good a citizen as his stay-at-home brother. That is an instance of what I mean by this Amendment. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be allowed to continue his arguments without interruption.

Sir A. SPROT: I have given that illustration to show exactly what I am driving at. I do not propose to deprive any person of a vote to which he is entitled at the present time. I do not put forward my proposal in any way as
a detractor of youth. I admire the youth of our country both male and female, but it does not follow that they ought to have the vote before they have had some experience of life and work in the world, or before they have shown that they are able to control themselves and win a certain position for themselves. If that can be accomplished, I submit that something good will be achieved. There is no doubt whatever that there is no demand for the changes which are proposed in the Bill we are now considering. I have only received one letter in favour of this Measure, but I have received a great many communications in favour of my proposal.
I have already pointed out that my Amendment would tend to limit the number of new voters who are going to be put upon the roll. I do not believe myself that the young people would in any way resent having to wait a year or two longer for the franchise. Women would have nothing to complain of under my proposal because they are not enjoying the vote at the present time and up to a short time ago they had no prospect of enfranchisement and do not demand it. One of the arguments recently put forward is that there has been no demand for this legislation on the part of young women, and as far as the young men are concerned I believe they would be quite willing to wait a little longer. I would just like to go back to what I was like when I was 21, and I think hon. Members opposite, if they are sincere, would have to make the same confession. When I was 21 I and my companions took no interest in politics whatever, the time came after we had knocked about the world and made a certain position for ourselves when our attention was drawn to these matters, and then we became rather keen politicians. I submit that the young men of the present age would act in precisely the same way and their feeling of chivalry would come in. They would say to themselves. "In order that young women may enjoy the vote upon equal and fair terms, we are willing to defer our attainment of the franchise for three or four years." I am quite sure the young men of the country would look upon this matter in that light and would acquiesce.

Captain CRAIG: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) that the time has arrived when we should put women on an equal footing with men in regard to the electoral franchise. My own view is that the Government have lost a great opportunity under this Bill of once and for all putting the franchise on an absolutely unassailable and firm foundation. I believe the Government have made a very great mistake by the action they have taken. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, and a few other hon. Members, wish to amend the Bill. I am afraid we have not much hope of doing so. We want to amend this Measure so as to make it a much better Bill than it is at the present time. There is really no demand for this Measure. For many months past, I have made it perfectly clear what my opinion is in regard to the proposals of the Government, and with the exception of a communication from the Association for Equal Citizenship, I have not had a single letter of any sort from people either opposing or expressing themselves in favour of this Measure. If the Bill deals with a question upon which there is a strong public feeling, surely a person like myself who has expressed strong views would have heard something about those views from the people who are interested. I have had no communications or protests of any sort or description in reference to my action and my attitude in regard to this Measure, and I think that constitutes a prima facie case for the statement I make, that there is no interest in this subject outside the House. That being so the Government ought not to have brought in this Bill. If there were a demand for it it would be a different thing, but there is no demand for it, and we should get on very well without extending the franchise in the ridiculous way that is proposed.
First of all, I would like to say to the members of the Association for Equal Citizenship that I am entirely in agreement with them, that women and men should be put upon the same enfranchisement basis. I voted for the extension of the franchise to women after the War, and I quite realise that, having done that, the women must be given the same rights as men. After the War we were all highly strung and suffering to a certain extent from hysteria, and we went too
far in granting universal suffrage to men at that time. I submit most strongly to the Committee that 21 is too early an age at which to give the vote to either a man or a woman, and I maintain that that opinion is held by the vast majority of the people in this country. Therefore, I would ask the Government why they are forcing that age upon us. My right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill smiles at that statement of mine, but I assure him that it is a statement of fact.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg my hon. and gallant. Friend's pardon; it was a small irrelevant remark made by someone else in the Committee that caused me to smile.

Captain CRAIG: I would ask Members of the Committee what has been their experience in their constituencies. Do they find any real desire that girls should have the vote at 21 years of age? I am perfectly certain that, if they told us what they have observed in their constituencies, they would say that that is not the case. What is the particular magic of the age of 21? It is quite true that that has been from time immemorial the age at which men have been legally assumed to have arrived at a state of manhood. Some age had to be adopted as the age when people would he able to do certain legal acts, and anyone will understand that it would he highly inconvenient to have more than one age for the entry of the young person into I he state of manhood—it would have been highly inconvenient to have different ages for different things. But there is no magic in that particular age of 21. I think that the majority of people will agree that it is too early an age for a person to exercise the responsibility of voting, and that it is a great mistake to go out of our way to give them the right, to do so.
It has been claimed that, since men already have this right, it would be a great hardship to take it from them, but I do not agree with that view. To begin with, as my hon. Friend has told the Committee, we do not propose that, the vote should he taken from such persons under the age of 25 as already have it, and I would ask whether hon. Members do not agree with me when I say that the youth of this country between the ages of 21 and 25 would not in the least
object to or regret the fact that they had not the right to vote. We all of us know of innumerable cases in the ordinary business of life in which, in this matter of deciding the age at which a young man or a young woman is to he given a responsibility, the legal age is not adopted. We know, for instance, that in the case of testators making wills leaving money or property or duties to people, it is very common for them to ignore the age of 21, and to leave property to people on attaining the age of, say, 25.

Colonel APPLIN: They often make a home at 21.

Captain CRAIG: I quite agree; they can marry at even an earlier age; but it is wrong for them to be given the great responsibility of voting at that age when 99 per cent. of them are not fit for it and 99½ per cent. do not want it. Again, with regard to the supposed magic of this age of 21, I would point out in the opposite direction—it may appear that this is an argument against myself, but that is not so—that the law allows people of an even lower age than 21 to do certain things. We know, for instance, that the driving of a motor car, which is a great responsibility, is permitted to a youth or a girl 16 or 17 of age. [Interruption.] There seems to be a difference of opinion, but at any rate it is somewhere about that age. That is another case in which the magic of this age of 21 has been ignored, and a totally different age adopted as the correct one at which to allow a person to do something which involves a considerable amount of responsibility. My whole point is that there is nothing in this particular age of 21, any more than in the age of 19, 20 or 22, that makes it the proper age at which a person should be given the responsibility and the right of voting.

Mr. GROVES: Is there any magic in the age of 25?

Captain CRAIG: No; personally I would rather fix it at 26 or 27, and in choosing 25 we are making a concession to those who think that 21 is the proper age. I hope that the Committee will not think that this is an irresponsible or foolish Amendment. It is nothing of the sort. There is nothing that I regret more than that the Government did not
carry out what I understood was a sort of promise at one time, to have a conference of all parties in the House to settle this question of the age at which the right and responsibility of voting should be given to both men and women. I regret very much that that was not done, and I freely admit that, unless hon. Members opposite take the view that I take in this matter, 21 is bound to be the age sooner or later. Even if we were to succeed to-day in getting the age raised to 25, I quite see that, unless that were done with the consent and approval of hon. Members opposite, at a later date the age would be reduced to 21. It is a matter that must be dealt with by agreement, and I regret, from what I have seen and heard, that, even if this proposal were carried to-day, it would not be carried by agreement.
These are the views which some of us—I am sorry to say that the number, apparently, is not large—bold to-day, and which we held a year age. I well remember discussing this question outside and inside the House, and particularly inside, and at that time it was very difficult to find any person who was in favour of the proposal of the Government, and yet the other day, as hon. Members know, when we came to vote on the question, we found that there were only 12 of the 615 Members of the House who carried their convictions into the Division Lobby. To-day, I hope there will be a larger number. Something has been said, although not so much as I should have liked to hear, about the supposed pledges of the Prime Minister. I say "supposed pledges," because I do not remember ever being conscious of any such pledges, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the hill for a little more information than we had during the Second Reading Debate as to the pledges which are said to have been given by the Prime Minister at the last General Election, and as to the pledges which were given by other Ministers. I suggest that it is really a monstrous thing that such of us in the Conservative party as are strongly opposed to the proposal to give the vote to women at 21 should he expected to do so because of some pledge given at the last General Election which I say, with a full sense of responsibility and with the utmost confidence, that I knew nothing whatever about at the time. I said
on the Second Reading that I believed that there were very few Members on this side of the House who were aware that any pledges at all had been given on the subject. Since then I have endeavoured to find out what these so-called pledges were, and I have failed. Therefore, I maintain that it is hard that we should be asked, from party loyalty, to follow our leaders in a course to which we have the most determined objection.
These are my reasons for supporting my hon. Friend, and I only trust that, even at this late hour, the Government may see their way to make some modification in this matter, knowing, as they do perfectly well, that there is no demand whatever for this low age of representation, and that, far from being of any assistance or benefit to those between the ages of 21 and 24, it will be looked upon by nine-tenths of them as a nuisance, and will be a sort of fish to he caught by the best electioneering agents at every General Election. Look-at what is going on among the youth of the present day, and looking back, as my hon. Friend did, to our own youthful days, I say with confidence that at least 99 per cent. of these young people who are just getting out of boyhood into manhood, or out of girlhood into womanhood, think nothing whatever about poltitics. Is giving them the vote at 21 going to make them think any more about politics? I am convinced that, if hon. Members will look into the matter, they will agree with me that people as a whole do not bother their heads about politics until they are 25, 26, or even 30.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of you do not know anything about it now.

Captain CRAIG: That may be, but whether the fact that people who have arrived at the mature age of the hon. Member and myself know nothing about politics is a good reason for giving the vote to a large portion of the community who more or less admittedly know nothing about politics, is another matter. I heartily support my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope that we shall have a great many followers.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. NAYLOR: The two hon. Members who have brought forward this Amendment are to be congratulated on at least
two things, their courage and their conservatism; but we cannot compliment them on their good sense. They have repeatedly put to the Committee the question whether there is any demand for the vote at 21 years of age. As to that I can give my experience in my constituency, and it is not merely a recent experience, but one that has ranged over half-a-dozen Elections. It has been the subject of common remark by young men and women, many of them married and already having families, that they have no opportunity of voting as their neighbours have. That complaint is made at every Election, and to ask us to believe that there is no demand for the vote on the part of those on whom it is now proposed to confer it is a travesty of the facts. In every department of human activity we find that young men or young women are recognised as entering at the age of 21 into practically all the responsibilities of life that are open to them. Is the matter of voting at an Election so difficult a thing that we can withhold that prescriptive right from so many potential electors who are living at present? If you take industry, you will find that an apprentice becomes a journeyman at the age of 21 and is expected to carry out all the duties of men considerably his senior. You also find that women on reaching the age of 21 are treated as if they were the equals of others over 30 years of age upon whom the franchise is already conferred.
Not a word has been said by either hon. Member on the curious anomaly that already exists in the law in this respect, that young men or young women between 21 and 30, or even between 21 and 25, although they have not the right to vote, have the right to stand as candidates for this House, and they can become Members of Parliament even though they have not the privilege of being able to vote for anyone else in the same position. Surely that is an argument in favour of granting the vote and opposing this Amendment. Again, I should like to ask the two hon. Members who seem to think the youth of this country take no interest in polities whether they have ever been Members or attended the meetings of the Oxford or Cambridge Union. There you have large
bodies of young men who, I think it will he admitted by everyone, thoroughly understand what they are talking about. It is the same in other classes of society. Times have changed since the hon. Members were young men. They have cited themselves when they were young men as examples of what young men ought not to be. The young men and young women of to-day are far more intellectual then they were in the days when the two hon. Members were young men, though I would not be so uncharitable as to suggest that they are evidence of that fact. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. Still, the fact remains that there has been a great change in the intellectual and educational quality of our young people, and, just as in the Universities you find a greater interest being taken in political questions and political life, so also among the working-class, who are more largely affected by this Bill, yon will find greater intellectual activities and a far greater interest in all the questions that affect them so closely in their everyday life; arid it is a mistake of hon. Members to attempt to persuade the Committee that there is no interest among them and no desire on their part t secure the Vote. The two hon. Members have said very little about what is perhaps the most serious aspect of the Amendment. It proposes to take the vote away from large numbers of young men who already have it.

Sir A. SPROT: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. We do not take the vote away from anyone.

Mr. NAYLOR: Do I understand the hon. Baronet to say that young men of from 21 to 25 are to retain the vote?

Sir A. SPROT: Those whose names are already on the register.

Mr. NAYLOR: The hon. Baronet is proposing to make a distinction between young men between 21 and 25 and young women of 21 to 25.

Sir A. SPROT: Not at all.

Mr. NAYLOR: This Bill is an attempt to put youth on an equality, and to preserve the equality at the age of 21 to 30, and it seems to me to be a very serious proposition indeed that these two
hon. Members should tt.11 us that young men and young women of 21 to 25 are not capable of exercising the vote, and for that reason alone the Committee will he fully entitled to reject the Amendment.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: When I put my Amendment on the Paper, I thought that it would be in order, but I quite understand that it is very difficult, owing to the Title of the Bill, to move any Amendments to carry out our opinions. I therefore find myself in rather a difficulty. I am not whole-heartedly in favour of the Amendment that is being discussed at the moment. I shall vote for it for the simple reason that I would vote for any Amendment which would prevent the Bill passing. But, purely on the question of this Amendment, it is a very difficult problem to try in the future to disenfranchise all those young between 21 and 25. I would have the impudence to suggest, though I have no doubt I should be in a minority of one, that a short time ago, when I was 21, I myself was capable of exercising the vote.
But my opposition to the Bill is not on the question of youth at all. I think the Government, in proposing a Bill which is going to increase the electorate by 5,250,000 voters so soon after the Act of 1918, is taking a tremendous chance and risking a great gamble with the Constitution. Young men between 21 and 25 are in quite different circumstances from young women between 21 and 25. I cannot conceive how it would he possible for the House, after passing a Bill which included this Amendment, in the case of another war, which, although we hope will never come, may come to pass in another generation—with a Government only put into office by the votes of those over 25, logically to determine to send young men to the front between the ages of 21 and 25. Of course, that argument holds perfectly good if it is carried to its conclusion by saying the vote should be conferred on all those over 78, but I think the young people who, after all, have to face that last call of duty have some right to be heard in our councils. I think they stand in a totally and absolutely different position from the young women of the same age. I thought on the Second Reading that there were two
great arguments against the Bill. One was that women would be put in a preponderating majority in 70 per cent. of the constituencies. In my opinion, that was a very bad thing, purely on the question of equality.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot help thinking the hon. Member is rather getting away from the question of age.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I only meant to pass from the argument for a moment, because I was pointing out that that was the principal argument against the Bill on the Second Reading. But there was an equally powerful argument against it in that the more you increase the size of the electorate the more impossible it is for Members to keep in touch with their constituents. There is an argument that can be followed on that line. There is no doubt whatever that at present the larger the electorate the greater the power of the executive. Throughout the history of the country and of our Constitution the House of Commons has played a memorable part. I am talking about the House of Commons entirely distinct from the executive or the Cabinet. The House of Commons on numerous occasions has taken decisions entirely on its own account. It has taken responsibilities upon itself. Individual Members have acted upon their convictions and upon principles which they hold dear to themselves, irrespective sometimes of party ties and of what Government was in office.
This Bill is a direct advantage to the party managers and to the executive Government, as distinct from individual Members of the House of Commons. I should like to see increased individuality on the part of Members of the House of Commons. I think proper government can only be carried out if individual Members of the House of Commons express the views they themselves really hold, which are very rarely heard in the House to-day, or the views which they know their constituents hold. I cannot see, first of all, how in a great number of cases they can express their own views because of the power of the party machine, and, secondly, I do not see how, with a huge electorate, they can express their constituents' views, because I do not understand how they can get to know
the views of their constituents. In the old days it was no doubt very easy for Members to find out the views of their constituents. They only had a certain number, and they could easily get into touch with them. How are they going to do so to-day? Most constituencies will have an average, if the Bill is passed, over the age of 21 of 60,000 or 70,000 electors, and in some cases, I believe, as many as 90,000. Even with the aid of the loud speakers and the wireless, of which a great deal too much is being made, how is a Member going to keep in touch with his constituents? [Interruption.] An hon. Member suggests that we may keep in touch with the Press, but the power of the House of Commons is being deliberately passed from the House of Commons by the Press themselves, and the larger you have the electorate the less power is going to be held by individual Members of the House of Commons.
The Home Secretary quoted from Disraeli that the franchise should be put on a broad popular basis and should be given to the largest possible number of people. I suggest that when Disraeli made the statement it was wholly irrelevant to the discussion, because the views of a. statesman however eminent during the past century, is scarcely applicable to the set of conditions that exist to-day. The whole tenor of his speech at that time was purely that the franchise should be given to those who paid either direct taxes or who paid rates. We have long since left that state of affairs behind in this country, and probably the majority of the people who exercise the franchise at the present moment are not the people who either really pay direct taxation or rates. This vital question of the size of the electorate should be seriously considered by hon. Members in this House. Gibbon, in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," said that when under democratic government the powers of sovereignty are given to the citizens, those powers will first be abused and then taken away if given to an unwieldly multitude. I think that this Bill, which in itself is a revolution, will lead eventually to further revolutions in order to take away the powers that have been given to the electorates to-day, and, as the Home Secretary knows, it is very much easier to give than to take away. We have had many
Bills pass through this House in the past seven or eight years which Governments that have succeeded have endeavoured to repeal.
We know how difficult it is, if you confer any sort of right, however large or however small, to try and repeal the Measure and to take away that right, because when once people receive a right they will not give it up again. Therefore, if the Government confer this right upon the electorate over 21, they will be doing something that no succeeding Government can probably ever take willingly away from the people to which it has been given. They are weakening, in my opinion, the Constitution at the present time, when, if they were returned to office to do anything, they were returned to strengthen it. By giving the vote to this vast number of people over the age of 21, they are preparing the way for any sentimental impulse or wild theory which may be proposed at the moment, and I think that the Home Secretary and the Government should most seriously consider, before they reject this Amendment. I think that hon. Members of this House should vote for this Amendment, and they should vote for it because by so doing they probably will not, if they accept the age of 25, increase the size of the electorate at all. They should vote for this Amendment, because they should use every endeavour to prevent this Bill from becoming law. I am quite certain that any hon. Member who thinks of the past will not think only of what effect his vote is going to have in his constituency at the next election but will look at the whole broad aspect of the question, will look to the strengthening of the Constitution, and to the upholding of the traditions of this country and of this House, and I am firmly convinced that if that be done, his Amendment will be carried and we shall, at any rate, have prevented the Government who were not returned to power to produce a Bill of this kind and who are meddling with subjects they were not returned to meddle with and who at the same time are leaving undone things which they were returned to carry out, from enlarging the electorate. I think that if they turn their minds to those urgent principles and policies which they put before the country at the election—

The CHAIRMAN: This is hardly relevant to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I have offended against your Ruling. In confining myself entirely to the Amendment upon the Paper, I do hope that hon. Members, when they vote, will vote freely, and I ask the Home Secretary that on this particular vote, if he finds it possible, he will take the Whips off and allow the Committee to give a free vote upon the question, because I am perfectly certain that, if that be done, he will find an overwhelming majority in favour of this Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) that, as far as Members on this side of the Committee are concerned, we shall, every one of us, vote freely against this Amendment, and we shall vote with the backing of the constituencies that we represent. This discussion has revealed, as discussions often do in this House, two schools of thought. The Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment dealt with the age of 21 as being an age bordering upon childhood, and I can quite understand that point of view. I wish we could all feel like that. I wish all our children had a youth at which education is not supposed to end until the age of 25. But, you see, we represent almost, I was going to say, a different kind of civilisation altogether. We in the main consider this from the standpoint of the vast majority of our population whose children begin to get their experience of knocking about in the world, of which the Seconder spoke, at the age of 14 years. By the time they get to 21 they have suffered most of the hardships of unemployment and all the difficulties and troubles of a very severe life bordering upon poverty or only just above poverty. It is that section of the community that is interested in politics, because politics interests itself in them. Laws which are passed in this House, while they may be matters entirely outside the consciousness of the sons and daughters of those who can afford to keep their children at school or at college until they reach mature years, are definitely concerned with the lives of those whom we represent here. It really is absurd to talk about young
men and young women of 21 years; of age as having no experience of life. It is that, difference in the environment and experiences between working-class people and people of leisure that sometimes makes us appear almost to be talking in a different language. It is because this Bill does enfranchise, in the new electorate, a very large proportion who belong to the class of people who have experience of life, that we welcome the age of 21 in the Bill.
There is one other point, which I should like to make, and it is in regard to the surprise which some Members have expressed that the Government have not put the age of 25 in the Bill. I understand that surprise, because, when the Prime Minister made his speech last year promising a conference, I think he gave an indication that at that conference the Government would probably suggest the age of 25. It should be recognised as a very significant fact that 21 has now been put in the Bill. I think that I am not exaggerating and assuming too much when I say that it is in consequence of the knowledge of what the country really expects that the Government, have put in the age of 21. It is because Members on the opposite side of the House, Members who represent the Conservative party, have been made aware of the fact that nothing short of the age of 21 will satisfy the demands of the country as a whole. The point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet—the only point, it seems to me, that requires at all to he dealt with, because I think that when the hon. Member reads his speech to-morrow morning he will find that he largely cancelled himself our—was his argument as to the necessity of enfranchising men at the age of 21 on account of war. Surely, he has forgotten already that when war comes, as war came before women will be part of the war machine as much as men. God forbid that we should have another war, but it is no use blinking the fact that if we have another war, war in the air will be no discriminator of sex, and it will be a question of the whole nation at war. So that argument as an argument in favour of any differentiation in age between the sexes, ceases to have the slightest weight with people who have very seriously considered the question.
I am very anxious indeed that we should proceed with the Bill. I am sure
that all those Members in this House who have made up their minds are anxious that we should get this Bill upon the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment and that we should get this age of 21 settled once and for all. I am entirely in agreement with Members opposite who fear this Bill because there will be large numbers of people who will not take an interest in politics. I do not dispute that for one moment. The point we desire to make is this: Where you have a large democratic nation like ours, you will inevitably have, both with men and women, certain persons who are politically-minded, certain persons who have a perfect genius for administrative and legislative affairs. What we are aiming to secure in this Bill—what we aimed to secure in the Bill which our party drafted in 1924—is that there shall be no harrier in the way of those who are politically-minded functioning to the fullest extent in the interests of the country. There always will be large numbers of men of all ages entirely indifferent to politics and large numbers of women entirely indifferent to politics —they will be a sort of dead weight—but because we cannot afford to shut out those who have a genius for Politics and the qualities necessary to help to create the political opinions of our country we must have the franchise broadly based and based upon an age which is known in law as the adult age.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I am probably more affected by this Bill than any other hon. Member, as I represent a larger number of women than any other hon. Member, and I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words on this Amendment. Of the electors in my constituency at the present time, 19,000 are men and 21,000 women. I am advised that if this Bill Passes, I shall have added to my electorate between 20,000 and 26,000 women. Many of them are 30 years of age and over, women who ought to have had the vote long ago. My constituents will, under the new arrangement, total 47,000 women and 19,000 men, a grand total of 66,000 electors. I do not suggest to the House that I wish to alter that discrepancy between the sexes. Whatever age we fix as the age for the conferment of the new franchise, I maintain that women and men who are of that age ought to have
the franchise at that age. I support what has been said by other hon. Members as to the unwieldy nature of the constituencies which are being created by the addition of 5,500,000 new electors. It is a very serious thing that hon. Members will cease to have that personal touch with the electors which they are able to have at the present time. Certain hon. Members say that the Press is already exercising too much control and too much influence on the electorate but this proposal will greatly add to that influence, because the Member himself will not be able to reach many of his electorate.
I do not pretend that there has been any direct voting on this question by large numbers of women in my constituency as to whether the age of 25 or 21 should be chosen, but I was present at a great meeting in the Albert Hall when the Prime Minister, on the 27th May, 1927, addressed 8,000 or 9,000 women on the subject. In that speech he said:
I am quite aware that there is a strong feeling, which has shown itself in many associations, that there should be a franchise for both sexes at the age of 25.
The meeting rose almost as one person and cheered the Prime Minister for several minutes when he made that statement. It was emphatically the greatest cheer the Prime Minister had at that meeting when he said that both sexes ought to have the vote at 25. It was the greatest meeting of women that I have attended for a very long time, and that view in favour of the age of 25 was unmistakably expressed at that meeting.

Sir WILFRID SUDDEN: Can the hon. Member say how many of the 21-year electors were present at that meeting?

Sir W. DAVISON: I did not ask the ages of the ladies. There were 8,000 or 9,000 representative women present, and that was the view of the women at that meeting. I do not say that it was a definite pledge, but it certainly was understood on the part of many of those present at that meeting that the question of the age would be left to a free vote of the House of Commons. That is very important. After the cheering had subsided, the Prime Minister said:
I can quite understand the feeling"—
that is, the feeling which was shown by
the cheering of the statement that both sexes should have the vote at 25—
and it may well be that were a Government giving the franchise to-day to the people of this country for the first time, that would be a proposal worth thinking of. If there be a strong feeling in the country that this would be a better thing to do, there would be full opportunity for their representatives to express their opinions in the course of the Debate when the Bill is in Parliament.
That may not be a definite pledge to leave it to a free vote of the House, but it was very near it. Certainly it was the understanding of a large number of the women present that it was the intention of the Government, as long as they secured equality of the sexes, to leave the question of the age to a free vote of the House. This is not a party question. This is not a question of the parties trying to show that they will benefit by it. As the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said, there is not likely to he any further franchise proposal before the House of Commons for many years to come, and it is very desirable that we should carry a good Measure into law which can stand the test of time for some years to come.
The question of expense has been dealt with at length on the Instruction, and, therefore, I will not trespass further on that point, beyond saying that the additional expense that will be caused by this very large number of new electors will be a very serious thing for Members of Parliament. Unless the amount that can be spent is restricted, it will prevent a number of people from getting into Parliament who otherwise would get in because they will be in the dilemma of not being able to afford the additional expense or not being able to get their opinions known to a large number of the electors. On that ground, it is not desirable to increase so largely the number of electors. Moreover, the vote already possessed is not properly appreciated. We find that only 60 per cent. 70 per cent. of the Parliamentary electors vote in election after election. In the municipal elections we find that the percentage of voters is sometimes as low as 17 per cent., while from 18 per cent. to 25 per cent. is a common thing. That shows that this wholesale franchise, which gives to everyone the right to vote
at 21, is not appreciated. To fix the age at 25 would tend to increase the dignity of the vote. It would be something that would be worth waiting for. It would make the dignity of our franchise more like the dignity of the old Roman citizenship: "I am a Roman citizen." It would increase the dignity of the vote. We should get people educating themselves and equipping themselves for the vote, and when they got it at the age of 25 they would exercise it proudly.
I am going to call to my aid an entirely dispassionate supporter, namely, the Registrar-General, on the question of prudence and responsibility. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) rather indicated that it was absurd to say that young people of 21 were less responsible than people of 25. On that point I would like to draw attention to some very remarkable paragraphs in the statistical review of the Registrar-General for England and Wales which was published last year. In dealing with the question of accidents, and in giving a table of accidents, especially in connection with drowning accidents, he points out that of the total number of deaths 84 per cent. occurred to persons below the age of 25 years.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: How many occur to people below the age of 21?

Sir W. DAVISON: I am dealing with what the Registrar-General says with regard to accidents to people below the age of 25. The Registrar-General says:
It looks almost as if prudence in matters of this kind were a faculty suddenly acquired at or about the age of 25.
In confirmation, he refers to the rule of the London General Omnibus Company that drivers are not to be taken on until they are 26 and conductors not before 24, as experience has shown that in these two years young men generally acquire a greater sense of responsibility. He goes on to say:
It seems odd that prudence and responsibility should be faculties suddenly acquired at any age, and, further, that this acquisition should occur for all men, whatever their environment, at much the same age; but the evidence of bathing deaths and of bus-driving accidents is strangely harmonious in pointing to 25 or thereabouts as such a critical age, when the man, as it were, really 'grows up.' so far as prudence and responsibility are concerned.
This is entirely independent evidence from the Registrar-General, and the experience of the London General Omnibus Company, who have to deal with the safety of tens of thousands of citizens every day and who for sonic reason or other, which they do not pretend td define, have come to the conclusion that the age of responsibility and prudence is reached between the ages of 24 and 26. As a rough-and-ready figure, it seems to me that everything points to the age of 25 as the age at which prudence and responsibility are conspicuously shown. Are we going to say that it is a matter of less responsibility and requiring less prudence to govern the British Empire than it is to conduct an omnibus? That is the conclusion to which one is driven by the proposal to enfranchise both sexes at 21. There is really no demand on the part of these young people for the vote.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

Sir W. DAVISON: There is no evidence whatever. I admit that there is a demand for equality, but there is no evidence whatever of a demand that the vote should be given to both sexes at 21 as opposed to 25.

Viscountess ASTOR indicated dissent.

Sir W. DAVISON: If the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) had been present— possibly she was—at the great meeting of 8,000 women at the Albert Hall, she would have heard a practically unanimous expression of opinion, the opinion which I am now expressing, that 25 is the age of prudence and responsibility, and that that is the most fitting time for both sexes to have the vote. I warmly support the Amendment, for the reasons which I have given.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: From some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington South (Sir W. Davison) it would have appeared that this was a Bill which was going to make young women into omnibus drivers and conductors. I am supporting the Bill as it stands. I think the Government are quite entitled to introduce this Bill. I question very much the competence of the Parliament of 1918 to introduce the Franchise Act, because under the Parliament Act it was legally dead in 1915. However the Par-
liament of that day enormously increased the franchise of its own volition, and the country was so stunned by the effects of the War that it did not know what was happening. Having done that, and having fixed the age of 30 for women, there was no getting out of the necessity of making the franchise equal for both sexes. I was at one time of the opinion that when the new franchise was introduced in 1918 the Government ought to have made the age 25 for both sexes, and that every serving soldier and every young woman who had been at the Front, no matter what their age might be, should have the franchise. That would have been carried, but apparently the Government never thought of it. It is too late to go back now.
This question of the franchise was brought up at meetings in my constituency, and I said that the franchise ought to be given at the age of 25, or on marriage. My constituents were rather puzzled when I used the words "on marriage," and they asked me for an explanation. I said that if a young man of 21 gets married, by the time that 12 months have elapsed he will be, at least, 25 years old in wisdom. Later on, one of the ladies asked me what would be the position of a young woman who married, and I said that if she had clone her duty, within 12 months she would be at least 35 years old in wisdom. Why are hon. Members so afraid of this proposal? It will put the franchise on a broad and universal basis. It is said that it will enormously increase the number of electors, but that is because there are far too many people in these islands, and is no argument in support of the claim that they are not entitled to have the vote. When the young women have the vote they will see to it that we have a better system of emigration and a better distribution of the population of this country in the waste spaces of our Dominions. Tie shall have more enterprise in the land when the young women have the vote. Hon. Members who oppose it say that the proposition is revolutionary. I say that a proposition to raise the age would be much more revolutionary.
Who is it now that carries out revolution in any country? It is the youths at the end of their teens, the young
men under 25, aided in many cases by the young women, and if you take away the constitutional right of expressing their opinions, if you do not give them some sort of safety valve in a free franchise, you are much more likely to spread revolutionary ideas than by giving the vote at 21. Surely we ought to take guidance from those parts of the world, the Anglo-Saxon parts, where it has been tried. It will not do to go to any European country, because Parliamentary government is an exotic plant in most countries on the Continent. It has failed all over Europe. We have to go to the Anglo-Saxon countries of the world, and if you take the most typically British Dominion, New Zealand, where 97 per cent. of the population are of British stock and extraction, they have had universal women's franchise since 1893, and only yesterday an ex-Minister of Justice of the Commonwealth of New Zealand, Mr. Wilford, was in this House, and he showed me a document which I have submitted to the Press. He says that when the Bill to enfranchise women was introduced in 1893 a great many people in New Zealand were very doubtful as to the wisdom of giving the franchise to young women as well as to young men but that his experience of over 32 years has been that the average young woman of 21 has more discernment, common sense and judgment than the young man of the same age. I think that is the experience of all of us. Many hon. Members of this House have expressed the view that in the industrial areas the young women will do exactly what the young men will tell them to do. I think that shows a lamentable want of knowledge on the part of those hon. Members. My view is that the young men will do exactly what the young women want them to do.
In New Zealand since 1893 the young women have availed themselves very largely of the privilege of voting, and there has been no revolution. I quite agree that young women who have worked in industry since they were 16 or 17 years of age, who have been up against the hard realities of life, acquire a great deal of commonsense and wisdom, and are the last people in the world to go in for anything in the nature of revolutionary or Socialistic disorder. They would be the first sufferers, they would be the first to
lose their jobs. I am somewhat amused at the rapturous cheers which come from the Labour benches in favour of this proposal, because, in my view, it will not favour their particular proposals. While we ought not to consider it from the point of view of party prospects, I am quite satisfied that with the innate conservatism of the women of this country, it will be a bad look-out for Socialistic nostrums when they get the vote. Mr. Wilford has himself said that the general conduct of the young women of all classes during the general strike in this country was such as to justify giving them the vote. They did not make fools of themselves like many of the young men. There is another aspect of this question, which, I am sure, will not appeal to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). One result of the universal franchise to women in New Zealand has been that no woman has ever yet succeeded in getting a seat in the House of Representatives. Women there do not vote for women, but, apparently thinking that it is a man's job, they vote accordingly. I do not say that this is my view, but that is the consequence of women having the vote in New Zealand.

Mr. B. SMITH: Can the hon. and learned Member tell us the disparity which exists between men and women in New Zealand?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have not got the figures, but I take it that the men outnumber the women there, and I think that one of the results of giving the franchise to women here will be that we shall get much more sensible schemes of emigration and some provision for larger numbers of women to go out to these remoter parts of the Empire, where young men are plentiful. It has been said that a young man of 21 does not think of politics. There are no doubt a great many young men like that. Many people take the view that young men and young women at 21 should be thinking of one another and. not of politics at all, but I Can assure hon. Members from my own experience that as a matter of fact the position is entirely different in very many eases. Mr. Wilford says that for 29 years his constituents have continuously returned him to Parliament. He has been opposed by many able Labour representatives, but
the Socialistic utterances of his opponents have never made the young women lose their heads. He says:
No man who plays fairly with his constituents need fear the women's vote. If the representatives of the people here could appreciate the attitude of the young women in New Zealand towards Empire they would realise that they are real assets in our great Commonwealth even before they are twenty-one years of age, and can [...]e trusted in any emergency to keep their heads and run straight. Yes, women of even twenty-one understand men tar better than men of that age understand men or women.
That is his view from practical experience in his own country. What is the use of calling in theories and prophecies? You have to take note of the practical experience of those British countries which have already tried this experiment, and I am perfectly satisfied that the passing of this Measure is going to solidify and stabilise the constitution of the country and place it on a far more stable basis than is possible while the present preposterous anomaly exists. I tell hon. Members opposite that I do not think it would be a good thing for their party; it will be a very good thing for ours, but that is not the reason why I am voting for it.

Mr. GROVES: The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) assumes that the Labour party is afraid of the extension of the franchise to the young women of the country. Let me remind him that the progress of the Labour and Socialist party—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I do not say you fear it. You welcome it, but that is because you do not understand it.

Mr. GROVES: There is an old saying that nothing succeeds like success, and the progress of the Labour and Socialist party has been in proportion to the extension of the franchise in the country. It has been said that there is no desire in the country for giving the franchise to young women at the age of 21. The experience of those who have any knowledge of industrial areas is that the young women in these areas, who have received some of the kindly attentions of the present Government, are very anxious and eager for the day when they can use their votes in order to help the Socialist programme. Our experience in industrial areas is that the young men and women take a keen interest in social and political movements and understand their
objective. Politics is the science of government. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the younger generation does not know exactly how and why conditions of poverty have been imposed upon them. They have not learned it in the scholastic way, nor in the way suggested by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), who ought to have known better than impose such mediæval theories on the House. Our young folk have learned from bitter experience that from the cradle to the grave they are enveigled in economic conditions imposed on them by the system of government of the country. Our young people have demonstrated their keen interest in social and political questions. Just as the young men in the Army were prepared to fight for what they considered to be right, so the young women are prepared to vote for the introduction of those Socialistic proposals which they believe to be right.
6.0 p.m.
This is assumed to he a non-party question, and we should not approach it from the point of view that any party is going to gain by it. It is the right of all citizens to be able to utilise their personal force in any direction in which they feel the country should be guided. In industry, at the age of 21, young men are turned out into the world, as I was myself. In an industrial sense they are fully-fledged workpeople, capable of doing a certain amount of technical work. In other words, they have proved their utility. It is therefore reasonable and right that such persons should have sonic say and influence as to the way in which the country should move politically. That is in regard to the young men. Now, with regard to the young women. There are very few industries in which young women are not called upon to perform the same work as men. Instead of men and women being separated, as in years past, they are now in a sense brothers and sisters in a great cause, that is, to make this country better than it was in the past. During the past 40 years the country has made certain strides forward, but every movement for reform has been met by the cry that it will mean the breakdown of the Constitution. When Sir William Harcourt introduced the Death Duties they were heralded as a constitutional revolution. No attempt
has been made to change or widen the Constitution of this country without old-fashioned people saying that it would mean ruination. We meet those things by telling them that new occasions teach new duties. We realise that just as the older men and women of this country have done their duty and done their best to make this country as great as it is, so they must recognise that the younger men and women who have followed in the footsteps of their forbears are just as interested in making this country great and free of poverty and immorality, and just as eager to do their duty to the nation as were their elders. I think that they have proved it. The young men proved their worth in the War, and the young women have proved their worth in industry and in the home. I say emphatically that in the Borough of West Ham—the same thing could be said by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Jones), who represents Silvertown—young men and women have been brought face to face with realities and facts, that their fathers have been denied bread, that their brothers and sisters have been denied help by the Ministry of Health, and they are longing for the day when they shall have the right to turn out of office those who sit on the Government Benches now. [Interruption.] I believe that we on the Labour Benches sit here because our party is the right party.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling a little wide of the question of the vote at 21 or 25 years of age.

Mr. GROVES: Yes, but I was drawn into it, and it was not entirely my fault. If the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will be as orderly as we were before she arrived, I shall not be upset by interjections. An hon. Member has laid great stress on the fact that there was no great demand for the vote for women at the age of 21. I can assure him that if he will take a visit to the East End of London and hold a few meetings and ask the younger women to register their opinion, he will find that they are as eager about, and as able to take an interest in, government, legislative or administrative, and that they will do their duty as sincerely and
loyally, as those who have gone before. There has been on break in the constitution of the country that has not been due to the introduction of a new idea. We younger men realise that there is no shock to our elders like the shock of a new idea. If this be a new idea, do not let us take it that it is unconstitutional, but rather that it is in proportion to the degree in which those who are to benefit have sacrificed themselves for the good of the country, and that the country is merely making a return to them as adequately as possible in granting the right to take an interest in the government of the land which we all proudly call our native land.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened with very great interest to the Debate, which has been full of interesting speeches well worthy of the grave question that is under discussion. In the last two speeches, both of them full of interest, I have got a little confused, because my hon. and learned Friend tie. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said, first, that it was desirable to give young people votes in order that t hey should not be revolutionary, and then later that they were so little revolutionary that he thought they would all vote Conservative.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is no inconsistency in that. By refusing a young man the vote to which he thinks he is entitled, you may make him entertain revolutionary ideas.

Lord H. CECIL: I do not agree that young men are so irritable in temperament or so changeable, that the refusal of a vote would change them from Conservatives into revolutionaries. The hon. Member who spoke last similarly appeared to argue that young men and women were not revolutionary, but he rather thought they ought to be so, because their lives were so hard. He and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) used the same argument—that the hardship of the young women's experience made them specially qualified to vote. That is rather a dangerous argument. It appears to me that they would then vote with a single eye to their own personal interest or the interest of the class to which they belong.

Mr. BATEY: Does not everyone do that?

Lord H. CECIL: The hon. Lady says that politics meant something to them. It, perhaps, is rather a reason which would lead us not to enfranchise any particular class of voters, if we were confident at the beginning that their votes would be determined by their own interests rather than the interests of the country. Unfortunately I was rather unwell when the Second Reading of the Bill was under discussion. I came to the House and heard the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) speak, and after that I went away, and next day my temperature went up to 102. I attribute that unfortunate result partly to having heard the Home Secretary say that voting was a right—a statement which greatly shocked me. Surely the sane view is that voting is a function, and that a person has no more a right to vote than he has a right to be a County Court Judge or any public functionary. He is given the vote only because it is thought that he will exercise it in a mariner conducive to the public interest. If that be so, what we have to consider is how we may get voters who in maturity of judgment and in capacity in political matters may most fittingly vote.
I agree with the Bill in not approving the present basis of the franchise, because it is quite an irrational basis. I ventured to point that out when the matter was being settled in 1917. I then strongly opposed the distinction of age, the distinction which places women in a different position from men in respect of age. I spoke in that Debate, and I made a speech very much like the speech that I am about to deliver. That is an experience which would fill the Chancellor of the Exchequer with envy if he were present—and it is after a period of more than ten years. I was unfortunate in not convincing the Prime Minister who, I find, voted in those days in favour of the distinction in respect of age by which women are kept out of the franchise until they reach the age of an. The Home Secretary. I think, was not present in 1917. Why was that an unreasonable proposal? Surely because, although there are some arguments against women's suffrage, they have nothing to do with age, and although there are some arguments against enfranchising young people, they have nothing, to do with sex; and to blend them together as the
existing law does is to place the franchise on a thoroughly irrational basis. Therefore I am in favour of assimilation.
But if we are really to base our franchise on fitness for a function, ought we not to have some regard to some of the considerations ably put before us by other members of this Committee, and to recognise that it is the plain truth that people over 25 are, in respect of political judgment, more mature than people under 25? I do not believe there is anyone who doubts that statement. That has been the development of the last 100 years. No one can now imagine a Prime Minister of 24. Pitt was 24, though he was perhaps an exceptional case; and Lord North was only 32 when he became Prime Minister. It is obvious that at that time people must have matured in political judgment a good deal sooner than they do now. I do not think that to day anyone would be selected for the office of Prime Minister at the age of 24 or even at the age of 32. If we want to have maturity, if we want to save democracy by making it respectable and by giving the power of democracy into the hands of those who will use it aright, the limit of 25 is much more probably the correct one than the limit of 21. There is no reason for thinking that you will always have the same limit of age for all occupations and all functions.
The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth), in a very able and interesting speech, spoke about his dislike of excluding a man from the franchise at 21 because that man would have to fight for his country. The hon. Member who spoke last said that he did not like excluding young men or young women, because they worked in industry and fulfilled various valuable functions in industrial life. The question is, rather, Are you fit? You are fit to fight at 21 and you are fit to conduct industrial functions at 21; but it does not in the least follow that you are fit to give a vote at 21, or most fit. Fitness is relative. A boy of 15 is quite fit to give a not irrational vote, but you do not enfranchise him, because you think his vote would not be as valuable as the vote of a person of fuller age. It has constantly to be remembered that every person you bring into the franchise diminishes the authority of those who
are already enfranchised. Every enlargement of the franchise is in a degree a disfranchising measure. Indeed, the first Reform Bill was passed and the earlier enlargements of the franchise were principally made not because they added any great number of votes to the total votes in the country but because they threw open constituencies which up to that time were very limited constituencies with 12 or 13 freemen—they opened these to a much larger number of voters, and thereby disfranchised, in effect, the narrow class that up to that time held full power.
If you enlarge the franchise, as you are going to do by this Bill and introduce 5,000,000 more voters, you will, in plain truth, take away from the political power of those who now exercise the franchise. You will diminish the authority which they now exercise, because they will have a smaller share in the total voice of the country. In a number of constituencies, which cannot be stated statistically, but which must certainly exist, the older people will be outvoted. A majority of those above 30 in a constituency will find themselves in a minority of the total electorate, and the representation, therefore, will be determined otherwise than according to their judgment. That, certainly, must happen in a number of constituencies. Let us further realise that the mere enlargement of a constituency is a grave evil. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley in his speech on the Second Reading spoke of this Bill as "completing democracy." But that is not at all true. The Bill does not complete democracy; it imperils democracy. The more voters you have, the greater the mass of voters, the less likely it is that the people will really govern themselves.
I do not know if hon. Members have read that most important book by Lord Bryce, written at the very end of his life with all his ripe experience—the book entitled Modern Democracy. In that book he scrutinises six great democracies—four of them Anglo-Saxon—and he comes to the conclusion in the end, among other things, that democracy works very much better, at any rate, where the number of voters is small and where, therefore, the personal relation between the candidate and the voter and, above all, the personal knowledge by the voters
of the character of the candidates, can be a greater reality than where vast masses of people are voting. Indeed, it is perfectly plain that, if you have these enormous constituencies, the power of the organisation becomes much greater. Not only that, but the organisation itself necessarily becomes more complex. If you have quite a small number of voters, as in the old days, when the franchise was much more restricted, a very simple organisation is enough and the personal relation between the candidate and the individual voter is a great reality. If you have a rather larger constituency then you must have an organisation, though not a very complicated one as yet. When your constituency, however, becomes larger still you must have not only an organisation but a smaller organisation within that organisation to organise the organisation. Then, again, you have the last stage when you must have organisation of organisation of organisation; and at every step the mechanical element grows greater, and the personal element grows less.
That is not self-government. That is not democracy. That is not a free people governing themselves. That is not government by the people of the people. It is nothing of the kind. It is government by bosses through an elective assembly of robots. Naturally, only men of great strength can go through the wear and tear of contesting these enormous constituencies. They are trained to the mechanical view of politics. They come here and vote with automatic regularity, as their party leaders and Whips direct, and they return here as long as their physical strength holds out, elected afresh for the mechanical functions for which alone they are suited. They are qualified in proportion to their efficiency for various honours at the disposal of the Crown. Some who are very good robots go on to the other House, there to continue the mechanical process. It is true that democracy has made great progress. It is true that it has been nominally accepted over much the greater part of the civilised world but it is not true that it is accepted in every civilised state. An hon. Member has said that over a large part of Europe it is discredited and in some countries actually formally abandoned. It is threatened by Sovietism in Russia and Fascisism in Italy. Movements which are
running all over Western Europe are treating democracy as having broken down. And, in this country, what was the general strike but an appeal to a non-democratic principle, because it was believed that the democratic machine, or what purported to be the democratic machine, was not truly self-government and the government of the people by the people?
So, we have to be careful. Democracy is like a man who is growing old and can no longer afford to play the tricks which he played in his youth. If we take this step which we contemplate taking, is it not possible that we may achieve the final discredit of what is already shaken in reputation? May not the people say, "If you are going to give the vote to a lot of boys and girls like that, then such a system of government will be a mere farce"? May not people turn to any dictator, to any natural leader of men, to give him an authority which they will say is now thrown away among the young and silly? May not that be so if it is realised, as it is being more and more realised, that in actual fact people are only enabled to choose between those whom the various organisations put before them and, most of all, if, the constituencies being so complex, the real decision is felt to be with the party managers, bureaucratically-minded and operating by mechanical organisation in order to fulfil purely partisan purposes?
Therefore, I am persuaded that in this gradual evolution of the robot we ought to stop. We ought to try to restore that personal vitality in politics, by which personality counted, by, which people exercised a real free choice, and by which, accordingly, the House of Commons enjoyed a wonderful reputation and respect. It is not a little remarkable that after every enlargement of the franchise the House of Commons has fallen in authority and respect. [HON MEMBERS: "No!"I Well, look at the papers. The papers reflect what the people want to read. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh!"] In 1880 people wanted to read the Debates in the House of Commons, and so the Debates in the House of Commons were printed in the Press. To-day they do not want to read the Debates in the House of Commons, although I think I may say we are all agreed that the Debates are very well worth reading. But
the people do not want to read those Debates. They prefer to read about sport, about murders, about divorces—or they did as long as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir E. Cecil) allowed them to read fully about divorces. They like reading about all sorts of subjects better than reading about Parliament. Probably it is because they feel that the deliberations of Parliament are no longer very important, and I am surprised that Members of the Labour party should dissent from what I am saying, because I thought that was the sort of thing which one read in Labour newspapers, and what was said at trade union meetings of one sort or another. I thought it was a commonplace in their ranks to say that Parliament did not count. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I give the impression that I have received; but, at any rate, no one will say that that is not a danger. How can you raise the credit of democracy? How can you make people see that government by the people is again a reality? [An HON. MEMBER: "Go back to 1832!"] No, I should not go hack to 1832.

Mr. J. JONES: To 1600!

Lord H. CECIL: I should try to give the franchise to those mature persons whose votes will command respect, those who are 25. No doubt, as far as the party point of view goes, they will vote as those under 25 would vote, but they will command much more respect in the votes which they give and the House of Commons elected by them will be regarded as capable of carrying more weight than a House of Commons elected by the young and irresponsible. The constituency, at any rate, will not be made materially larger. I am not sure whether the deduction proposed in the Amendment would quite cancel the enlargement or not but I think the numbers would remain substantially the same as they are now. You will not, therefore, increase the evil of the cumbersome unmanageable constituency. You will not magnify still further the power of the organisation and the authority of the boss.
I confess that to me this Amendment is, in truth and in fact, a preservative of democracy. It treats democracy as being
a serious thing. It shows that you value the vote if you only give it to those whom you feel to be mature persons, capable of exercising it. In his heart does anybody really doubt that if voting were an important function, there would not be two questions about it—the people would strictly restrict it, and keep it in the hands of those old enough to use it aright? It is only because in their hearts they despise the vote, because they think it does not matter who has a vote or who will exercise it, that they do not care whether it is given to boys and girls at 21 or not. I am sure we ought to be careful. I am sure we ought to recognise that, unless we shore up democracy, some of these influences Fascism or Sovietism or some other influence, may prevail. I am not at all supposing that there will be a reaction to an older form of government, but there are all sorts of governments possible, and we may have, in one form or another one of these things coming upon us unless we place our representative system on a basis which commands the respect of intelligent people. Such a basis is to be found in the Amendment and not in the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It will be recognised, I think, that we have reached an important, point in the Committee stage of this Bill. The Bill as it received its Second Reading proposed to enfranchise some 5,000,000 women. The proposal made this afternoon is to equalise matters by enfranchising 2,500,000 women and disfranchising some 2,500,000 men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that is the proposal of my Noble Friend who has just spoken. He said he thought the voting strength of the country would probably remain about the same as it is at present, balancing the number of men disfranchised by the Amendment against the number of women who would be enfranchised. It is right that the Committee should understand exactly what the proposal is. I repeat that it is a proposal to enfranchise 2,500,000 women and, at the same time, as a gesture of friendliness and to make the Bill easier for men, to disfranchise 2,500,000 men.

Sir A. SPROT indicated dissent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know that my hon. Friend was very careful not to advocate disfranchising men from 21 to 25 who at present would have the vote. His point was that a man who
is now an elector should remain an elector. But in the lifetime of a country, four years is a very short time, and we are now dealing with this matter probably for the rest of this century—if not for longer than that—and, as far as we can see, the effect of this proposal would be that men who are now entitled to have the vote at the age of 21 should no longer have it at the age of 21 but only at the age of 25. That would be going back on history. We have had a succession of speeches from some of my hon. Friends including the hon. Member for Northern Lanark (Sir A. Sprot) the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harms-worth) the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and the right hon. and Gallant Member for Antrim (Captain Craig). They were congratulated from the benches opposite on being representative of Conservatism. I look upon them as pre-historic men. I have no doubt that, if he dared to do so, my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) would like to alter the whole Constitution of the country so as to make the vote generally more in accordance with the University franchise and make literary capacity the test. If my hon. Friends below the Gangway here are prehistoric men, my Noble Friend is the Piltdown skull itself! It really is asking us to go hack to a position that, democracy certainly will not permit.

Lord H. CECIL: The Amendment has never been the law of the land. I am in favour of the Amendment, not of going back.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg my Noble Friend's pardon. The law of the land to-day is that men of from 21 to 25 may vote, and you are taking away that right. You are going back certainly, by removing something which has been the right of every male voter for 500 years. You are putting the clock back merely because of this oligarchical idea that government should be by people most fitted for it. When I have considered the question whether 25 is a better age for voting than 21, that has led to an inquiry in my mind as to what is the best age, the age at which a man is most mature and best able to take his share in political life, and I have come to the conclusion that 62 is about the right age,
and if it were possible to have this House governed by men of 62, I think we might perhaps get on better than we do. But I realise that, in coming to that conclusion, I am also a hack number, and I will not ask the House to go as far as that.
A curious thing about this Debate is that my hon. Friends to whom I have referred are not at one. The two real diehards, the hon. Member for Northern Lanarkshire and the right, hon. Member for Antrim, will have nothing of it at all. They do not believe that women are fit to vote at 25. They really object to women—they would like to get the men out as well—but they do not think they are fit at 25, they do not believe they want it, they do not believe there is any demand for it. I wonder if either of them has ever had in his constituency a body called the Junior Imperial League, a very remarkable organisation which has sprung up in the Conservative party, of young men and women of from 16 years and upwards, full of political zeal, full of political knowledge.

Sir W. DAVISON: You are not giving the vote to people of 16.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: People of 16 are learning politics to-day in a manner in which my hon. Friend, if he will forgive me for saying it, did not learn polities when he was 16. Then comes my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, who made a very remarkable speech. I always look upon him as an oligarchist. He is a man who, if he had control of the destinies of the country, probably would govern it very wisely. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington used as an argument against the vote for young people that the London General Omnibus Company did not allow their conductors to conduct until they had reached the age of 24. I agree, and that being so, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet could not have been an omnibus conductor though he made a very good Member of Parliament—at 21. We have had him a good many years, and we have watched his career and his growth. He made a very interesting Member of Parliament at 21, and I am not at all sure, from my point of view, that he was not better at 21 than he is now. He did not quite like this Amendment, but he is going to vote for it because he thought it would kill the Bill. He admitted—this oligarchist—that he would vote for any
Amendment of any kind which would injure the Bill.
That is not a, very reputable or a very good reason to put before the House of Commons, but he objected to the Amendment itself. He objected to taking votes away from young men from 21 to 25—he did not agree there with my Noble Friend opposite—but he only supported the Amendment because he wanted to kill the Bill and because he thought the House of Commons would really be better, with some trifling exceptions, if Members were not introduced until the age of 25. He thought the House of Commons would have increased individuality. Fancy 500 Members for Thanet! However should we get along with the government of the country? I admit that he is a most cheery supporter of the Government on occasions, but when he feels strongly he is one of those Members who do more to destroy the strong Government that at present exists than any other Member. However, if I may, I will leave him and come to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington, who was very keen to read to the House a speech which the Prime Minister made at the Albert Hall, when, I understand, my hon. Friend was present, in regard to the age of 25. The Prime Minister said:
I am quite aware that there is a strong feeling, which has shown itself in many associations, that there should be the franchise for both sexes at the ago of 25.
I do not deny that. It is the kind of feeling which we have seen expressed by my five hon. Friends who have spoken to-night. They are the kind of people who throughout the country are in favour of putting the clock back, but they all sit for South Kensingtons. The Prime Minister, at the Albert Hall, however, said something which was not read out by my hon. Friend. He said:
I will just put this to any provincial candidate at the next election"—
a provincial candidate, not a candidate for South Kensington. My hon. Friend could stand on his head and win South Kensington. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I meant to pay him a compliment. I was comparing him to Disraeli, who on a great occasion told the electors for the Wycombe Division of Bucks that he stood on his head. But suppose my hon. Friend were to leave South Kensington and go to a place in
Yorkshire or Lancashire, where, by the by, the great industrial community votes Conservative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went on to say:
You would be asked, 'Are you in favour of a man having the vote at 21 or not?' He would be a bold man who would stand up and say, 'I am not.'
My hon. Friend may be bold enough to go to Lancashire, to a great mass meeting in Liverpool, Manchester, Blackburn, or any one of those cities that I know so well, and say, "I am going to stand here on the policy of disfranchising the young men in the mills until they are 25," but he would certainly be a bold man, as the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister went on to say:
He would find it very difficult, in my view.
That is the part of the Prime Minister's speech which my hon. Friend did not repeat, and I think he will admit that it is an important part of it. It shows that the Prime Minister has considered this matter from every aspect and from every angle. We have, of course, considered it in bringing in this Bill. We have considered the rights of the great mass of the women of the country; we have considered the views of the late Mr. Bonar Law, who never accepted as final the compromise of 1918; and we have considered it from the point of view that my Noble Friend takes, that the compromise of 1918 was right. We had to consider what we were to do, and we came to the conclusion that the only possible thing to do was that which we have done in the Bill, namely, to make the franchise the same for women as for men. But we are now asked to make it the same for men as for women, at the age of 25. We have then to ask, "Is it politically possible?" Will anybody go back and say to the toiling masses of our country, "We are going to disfranchise all these young men till the age of 25." when every civilised country in this world gives votes to men at 21? The United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and the Irish Free State—every one of them—give the franchise to men at 21, and every one of them give the franchise to women at 21. We are asked to stand aside, right in the face of the political ideas of practically the whole civilised world, because, forsooth, my Noble
Friend says that if we do not, we shall rear or become a race of robots in this country. I am not at all sure that he did not suggest we were robots now.

Lord H. CECIL: We are robotising.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We are partial robots. I have not seen any sign of it during the last few months in this House. I have not seen that wonderful mechanical desire to support the party at any cost which, I suppose, should be present in all real robots. My Noble Friend suggests that enfranchisement really means disfranchisement of some people. I agree. It means the disfranchisement of privileged voters, but it means the enfranchisement of humanity as a whole, and I am prepared to take my stand with the great leaders of the Conservative party in the past in favour of that policy. My Noble Friend—I confess I do not quite understand how—used the argument of the general strike as being a strike against democracy. If there was anything shown by the general strike, it was that democracy could conquer the general strike, provided democracy has free representation in the House of the people of this country. Is the Conservative party going to tie itself up with this pre-historic idea of going back to 25?
I have been asked to give a free vote, not to put the Government whips on. Those of my hon. Friends who have spoken will, I presume, be compelled by their speeches to go into the Division Lobby in support of their opinion, but I do not want to make more of them go into the lobby in support of an opinion of this kind, and I will tell those of my hon. Friends who have not spoken that I think it is the duty of the Government to say what I say now, on behalf of the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government as a whole. I am not going to disguise the fact that there may have been in the Cabinet, as, of course, there are on all questions, in all Cabinets, diversities of opinion; you could not get any good scheme forward except by the play and clash of opinion. These discussions have, of course, taken place in the Cabinet, but the Government on a question of this kind are absolutely united. The Government are at one, and we should be lacking in our duty as those responsible for the govern-
ment of this country if we were to shirk our responsibility in a matter of this kind by leaving it to the House. Everybody knows that on many occasions I have, perhaps more than has any other Minister, left questions to the free decision of the House, but in a great matter of principle of this kind, I am not prepared to see the Conservative party without the courage of their opinions, and I say to my hon. Friends in the Conservative party that you cannot, and you dare not, go before the country as a party of reaction and say that, because you do not like the vote for women in this Bill, you are going to destroy the right of men up to the age of 25 to take a share in the government of the country. That being so, on behalf of His Majesty's Government I hope and trust that my hon. Friends will unite with the vast majority of the whole House, and will reject this Amendment.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I happen to be in the position of having voted on the Second Reading of this Bill against granting the franchise to women. In these circumstances, it might place me in a rather awkward position if I did not state why I intend to vote against the Amendment to-night. It is not because I have changed my opinion in any way. I am deadly opposed to giving the vote to women at 21. I consider that when the vote was given at 30, it was as much as any Government ought, in the circumstances, to have given, and I stated then that I was opposed to giving the vote even at the age of 30. I am not going to vote for this Amendment to-night for this reason alone: You cannot set the clock back; you cannot turn round and say in regard to the man to whom you have given the vote at 21, that in future, although he had sense enough when he was given the vote at 21, times have altered and that to-day he is not qualified to express an opinion until the age of 25. I happen to be one of those Members who could not see their way to support the Government, but as I indicated then, I am always desirous of going as far as I can to support the Government; I could not do it then, but it is because I do not agree with setting back the clock to-day that I shall not be able to vote for the Amendment.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Sir S. CHAPMAN: May I say, before I speak for three minutes, that I sit here as often as anyone, and I do like three or four minutes from time to time. I am never selfish in trying to monopolise the time of the House with long speeches. All I want to say is that I was prevented from speaking or voting on the Second Reading, and I wish to tell the Home Secretary that, while I was not here in body, I was here in spirit, and I am going to-night to vote for the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. A great deal of fuss has been made to-night by the Opposition about very little. My constituency will number about 45,000 electors, and of that number only 700 will be 21 years of age. Below 25 years of age there will be not quite 3,000. Is that going to damage the Constitution? Is that going to

bring about a revolution? All the speeches which have been made remind us of 1832 and 1867, and "The Conservative Surrender" and the "Quarterly Review." Who benefited more by the extension of the franchise in 1867 than the party who sit on this side of the House; and who was the greatest Prime Minister of all who benefited most by the extension? Who but he who opposed it most, the Marquess of Salisbury, who was the greatest leader and Prime Minister the Conservative party has had since then? My constituents are entirely in favour of this Bill. We have more women in South Edinburgh than in any other constituency in Scotland, and I give my whole-hearted support to the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'electoral' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 359.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert



Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Sir Alexander Sprot and Sir William Bull.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bromley, J.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Albery, Irving James
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ammon, Charles George
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Harry


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dennison, R.


Astor, Viscountess
Campbell, E. T.
Drewe, C.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cape, Thomas
Dunnico, H.


Baker, Walter
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Balniel, Lord
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Chapman, Sir S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Barnes, A.
Charleton, H. C.
England, Colonel A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)


Barr, J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Clayton, G. C.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cluse, W. S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bennett, A. J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Bethel, A.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fenby, T. D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Fielden, E. B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Compton, Joseph
Forrest, W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Connolly, M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper, A. Dull
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cope, Major William
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Couper, J. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Briant, Frank
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cove, W. G.
Galbraith. J. F. W.


Briggs, J. Harold
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Gardner, J. P.


Broad, F. A.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gates, Percy


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Long, Major Eric
Sandon, Lord


Gibbins, Joseph
Lougher, Lewis
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.
Savery, S. S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Scrymgeour, E.


Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Maj.-Gen. sir Richard Harman
Scurr, John


Gosling, Harry
Lumley, L. R.
Sexton, James


Gower, sir Robert
Lunn, William
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Shepperson, E. W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shinwell, E


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Greenall, T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macintyre, Ian
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
McLean, Major A.
Skelton, A. N.


Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smille, Robert


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Macmillan, Captain H,
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Groves, T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Grundy, T. w.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Malone, Major P. B.
Snell, Harry


Hall, F. (York, w. R., Normanton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
March, S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Margesson, Captain D,
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hamilton, Sir George
Maxton, James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hardie, George D.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harney, E. A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Montague, Frederick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hartington, Marquess of
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sullivan, J.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris, R. H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Murnin, H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Hills, Major John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exater)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hilton, Cecil
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hirst, G. H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Oakley, T.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Owen, Major G.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Palin, John Henry
Waddington, R.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, W.
Wallace, Captain O. E.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perring, sir William George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilcher, G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Preston, William
Wells, S. R.


Jephcott, A. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Welsh. J. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pureed, A. A.
Westwood, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Radford, E. A.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Raine, Sir Walter
Whiteley, W.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsden, E.
Wiggins, William Martin


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Kelly, W. T.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Richarason, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, Ben
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Litchfield)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Kirkwood, D
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Withers, John James


Lansbury, George
Ropner, Major L.
Womersley, W. J.


Lawrence, Susan
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Lawson, John James
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Lee, F.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lindley, F. W.
Rye. F. G.
Wright, W.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. sir Philip
Sakiatvala, Shapurji
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Salmon, Major I.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Livingstone, A. M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred



Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Major Sir George Hennessy and Mr.


Loder, I. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Penny.

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out paragraph (c).
7.0 p.m.
If I could do exactly what I would like with this Bill, I would take out paragraph (b) as well, but I realise that it does raise a very important point, and would probably create such a division in the House as would hinder the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friends and I, therefore, have contented ourselves with putting down an Amendment for the deletion of paragraph (c) because that paragraph appears to be so utterly unnecessary and illogical. The main principle of this Bill is to equalise the existing franchise, yet by this Clause it also duplicates existing injustices and privileges. It is perfectly clear that the great principle in this Bill is the principle of adult suffrage, that is to say, putting personality above property in our Constitution. Yet this Bill still retains and perpetuates that secondary qualification for a very small number of voters, thus making the Bill illogical. This provision really amounts to a blot upon what would otherwise be a very satisfactory Bill. The Home Secretary told us in his speech on the Second Reading that this second qualification refers to, roughly, 420,000 voters, but I understood him to say that paragraph (c) taken by itself would enfranchise, roughly, about 16,000 men and about 30,000 women, so that the actual numbers involved are very small indeed compared with the total electorate of the country.
The principle involved in this Amendment is one which ought to have the sympathetic support of the Home Secretary. What exactly does this paragraph do? In effect it means that in those cases—not very many, it is true—there is an increase in some cases of four additional votes to a household. The husband may vote for his own business premises, for his own residential qualification, and in respect of his wife's business, while, on the other hand, the wife votes in respect of her residential qualification, her husband's business, and her own business. That would mean six votes between the two of them in such a case. Consider the inequality of it. It is not a vote conferred upon the business man as such, because he cannot.
exercise the six votes. In the case of the man, he has to choose which of the three votes he will exercise, unless those are in different constituencies. If his business is in the same constituency as his residence, he can choose whether he will exercise the business franchise or the residential franchise. The same thing applies to the woman. It is a duplication of a fancy franchise which carries no dignity with it, and serves very little purpose except to perpetuate existing anomalies and privileges for a very small section of voters.
The Bill would be vastly improved from many points of view, and far more capable of being defended in every particular, if this paragraph were deleted altogether. It creates an inequality between man and man and between woman and woman by giving this additional voting power to this small section. I cannot see that its deletion would mean the slightest infringement on the pledge, which the Government have repeated in this House, to give absolute equality under the existing franchise to men and women. This is something in addition to the ordinary business qualification which exists under paragraph (b). It does definitely duplicate the property qualification in respect of this small number of, roughly speaking, 50,000 persons. Why should these 50,000 persons have this duplication forced upon them? I cannot imagine it is in consequence of any demand that has been made. We are moving all the time in the direction of a simplification of the franchise. We hoped very much that it would have been possible, even in this House of Commons, to have got rid of plural voting altogether. I am not making that demand, but I am only asking that this additional absurdity—because it is an absurdity—shall be wiped out of the Bill.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I desire to support the Amendment. It is important that the House should appreciate exactly its nature. Under the present law, a man has a vote for his residential qualification, and for any business qualification which he may possess, and he can be registered in any number of constituencies for those different qualifications. When it comes to a general election, he can only exercise two, at the outside, of those votes. At the present time a woman can only be registered on behalf
of her own business qualification, and for other qualifications which she or her husband may possess, but when it conies to a general election, even though she be registered for more than one constituency, she is only allowed to exercise one vote. What this paragraph does in the first place, to give the woman between 21 and 30 an additional qualification of being registered as the wife of her husband who has business premises. In addition to that, it enables the woman over 30 to vote at a general election on behalf of this additional qualification. The number of women who are thus additionally enfranchised between 21 and 30 is 31,000, according to the Home Secretary in his speech, but the number of women who will become plural voters by virtue of this paragraph is very much larger than that because, in consequence of the existence of this paragraph, many women over 30 will have plural votes at the election who do not possess them at the present time.
As far as I am concerned, any provision which the Government put into this Bill in order to make the position of women actually identical with that of men will have my support, because I feel very keenly that the position of the two sexes should be made quite equal. But the Government could have made it quite equal, and retained the measure of plural voting existing at the present time, without this paragraph (c) at all. It is wholly unnecessary. It would have been possible for the Government to have retained the residence qualification for women and for men, and in addition the business qualification for women and added thereto the business qualification for women from 21 to 30, and have stopped there. That would have been a position when men had precisely the rights they have at the present time and women had conferred upon them the precise rights that men have to-day. But the Government, through this paragraph, have attempted to go further than that; they have said that because women have a fancy franchise—that is, the franchise which they get through their husband's business qualification if they are over 30—therefore we are to confer that fancy franchise also upon men.
It seems to me that is a step which is wholly unnecessary in order to achieve the general purposes of this Bill, and one which is de-
signed solely with the object of creating a very large number of additional, not plural voters merely, but of fancy franchises for men and women. The additional vote which a great many women will receive under this proposal is not asked for by the women who have been fighting for women's suffrage all these years. What they have asked from the beginning was that a woman should stand on her own feet and on her own basis for the purpose of obtaining the franchise. The fancy proposal put into the 1918 Act was that a woman should get a vote not merely on account of her self, but on account of being the wife of her husband; but the women who stand for equality are not in favour of that proposal. Women do not want to get votes because they are the wives of their husbands, but because they are human beings, and there is no reason why paragraph (c) should be included in the Bill, because women would stand in the right position as regards the vote if it were omitted.
It may be argued by the Government that this paragraph is necessary in order that they may not take away what come women already possess. There is a very small amount of truth in that argument. It is quite true that a small number of women do have a double registration in consequence of being registered on account of their husbands' business qualification, but this additional right is of very little use to them, because it is only at by-elections that they can take advantage of it. At General Elections a woman who has the vote owing to her husband's residential qualification and owing to her husband's business premises can exercise only one vote; therefore, practically speaking, no woman had any great advantage conferred on her at a General Election; but the moment you sweep away the disqualification which distinguishes men from women, and allow women to have two votes at a General Election the same as men have, you raise this point into one of very great importance. The only right we shall be taking away from women in omitting paragraph (c) is the very thin right of having two votes or more in by-elections. It may be said that we cannot afford to take away any existing right, but when we are conferring a very much better franchise there is no reason why we should not take away certain elements of the old franchise,
even though in some isolated cases we are curtailing rights in this way.
Even the present Bill takes away the franchise from a certain number of women. At the present time a newly-married woman who has married in the middle of a qualifying period and goes to reside in a new constituency enjoys the vote in respect of her husband's qualification. Under the new Bill, owing to the fact that she has changed her constituency in the middle of the qualifying period, she will not get the vote. There is nothing to complain of in that. It is the natural consequence of giving a woman the right to vote on her own standing and not merely on her husband's, and that is a perfectly sound thing, and precisely on the same lines as if you took away the right of a woman to vote on her husband's business qualification and allowed her to vote on her own business qualification, which would be true equity under the law.
Finally, I wish to remind the Committee that the Home Secretary, in a speech to which I am sure all sections of the House listened not only with interest but with pleasure and appreciation, used these words:
This Bill means the disfranchisement of privilege.
I put it to the Minister who is going to reply that if the Government retain this paragraph in the Bill they greatly increase plural voting. I think it has been estimated that the effect of this Bill will be nearly to double the number of plural voters, and that is due in great part to the existence of this paragraph. Can the Minister really say that the words of the Home Secretary:
This Bill means the disfranchisement of privilege
are being carried out if one of the effects of the Bill is to create a further 200,000 plural voters? I ask the Government to reconsider this question, and I ask the Members of the Committee to vote against this particular paragraph. It is not necessary in order to give equality; it is not asked for by the women, who want to stand on their own feet and not to get votes simply as the wives of their husbands; and it is not in accordance with the expressed desire of the Home Secretary that this Bill should mean the disfranchisement of privilege.

Sir J. SIMON: To anybody who has given consideration to the making of a complete franchise scheme this particular paragraph which it is proposed to omit is little short of an absurdity. It cannot be disputed that the only ground for retaining it is to increase the number of plural voters. There is no other logical ground on which anybody could justify the inclusion, in a thoroughly democratic franchise law, of a provision that an individual should have a vote not on that individual's own qualifications, but because that individual is the husband or the wife of a person registered in respect of business premises. I am quite unable to understand how there can be any justification for such a provision in a Bill such as this professes to be, unless it be inserted for the deliberate purpose of adding a certain number, though not a very large number, to the plural voters already in, the country. At the beginning of our proceedings the Chairman, Mr. Hope, pointed out that inasmuch as this Bill was one to assimilate the franchise for men and women that might be done by altering the word "man" into the word "woman" wherever it occurred in the Act of 1918, or it might be done by any other method which brought the two kinds of voters, men and women, to a precise level, but I can see no ground at all in principle for increasing the number of plural voters because in the Statute of 1918 women were in certain cases given a voting right because their husbands happen to have a business qualification. What was the historic reason why that was done? I served on Mr. Speaker Lowther's Committee, and followed very closely the controversies of that time, and the only reason why that qualification, which in itself is quite absurd, was propounded for women was because at the time it was desired not to give the vote to too many women. It was felt that you could give the vote to a woman whose husband had got a business qualification and still be sure that the number of women voters on the register would, in total, not be more than the number of men.
I never sympathised very much with that reasoning, which appears to proceed from a view of human nature which is manifestly untrue in two respects. It proceeds from the view, first of all, that no woman will ever agree with a man,
which, fortunately for some of us, is not the case; and, in the second place, it proceeds from the view that all women will agree with one another, which they never have done and never will do to the end of the world. Therefore, I never can appreciate why people should have been so timid; but that is the historic reason why it happened; and as far as I can recall the history of the franchise in this country, right from the beginning till now there has never been a case in which we have tried to make a qualification for a vote the fact that a voter's spouse had a particular right to vote—except in the particular case of the Act of 1918.
The thing is an absurdity. Let us take two illustrations in order to see how ridiculous it is. I will take one instance of a man and another instance off a woman. Take the great profession to which I used to belong. If you go to the Temple, and look at the names at the bottom of one of the staircases in Middle Temple Lane, you will find there a series of chambers occupied by a series of men who are engaged in a business occupation. In the ordinary way each of those men will have a vote in the City of London in respect of those business premises. One of them, living in Kensington, happens to have a wife. Because he has got a wife we are to be told that his wife ought also to have a vote in the City of London—because her husband has got business premises there. Next door, carrying on exactly the same profession, paying exactly the same rent and rates, and having the same business interest in the Temple, is a man who is only to have one vote in the City of London, because he happens to be a bachelor.
Could there be anything more absurd than to say that a vote which is to be earned by the occupation of business premises is to be doubled and to be used by two people because a business man happens to be married. No doubt ladies are in many cases of the greatest assistance to their husbands, by encouraging them in their hours of business, but when you are laying down the principles of a democratic franchise law it is an astonishing proposition to say that whenever a man who is practising a profession or a business happens to marry a young woman at the age of 21, and to live in
some perfectly different part of the country, that this is automatically to result in that young lady having a vote in the City of London.
Take the reverse case. Take the case where the business premises belong to the wife. You may have a gentleman of leisure, married to a lady living in some part of London who carries on a bonnet shop in Mayfair. It may he argued that she should be allowed to vote in Mayfair, but on what conceivable principle of commonsense can you say that because this lady is a married lady, her husband, who may be entirely idle and live somewhere else should have a vote in Mayfair as well. Anyone who sets out to construct a just franchise law would never think of doing anything of that kind. The only possible reason for saying that one person should have a vote because that person's spouse is carrying on a business is that in 1918 Parliament did not want too many women to have votes. The other possible explanation is that there are some people who would like to secure that a few more people should have plural votes. I await with interest the explanation of this point which will be given from the Treasury Bench.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) reminded hon. Members that it would probably be argued on behalf of the Government that, if we accepted this Amendment, it would result in the disfranchisement of a certain number of women electors. That is precisely one of the arguments which I propose to use. At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member said that, although the actual additional number of plural voters which would be placed upon the register by paragraph (c) was only about 30,000 or 40,000, there were a large number of other women who already possessed the right to be on the register. Later on in his speech the hon. Member again referred to those same women as quite a small number, so small that he thought it was not worth while bothering about them. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I said that at the
present time there is a large number of women who have a double registration, but when it comes to a general election they are not able to use both their qualifications, and, therefore, the number who can actually vote at a general election is very small. Therefore, the plural vote is of very little use to any of them. When we come to this Bill, and when we are dealing with the women who will have two votes at a general election, you will first of all enfranchise 30,000 new women who at the present time have not a vote at all, and in addition you will be giving a second vote, by this paragraph, at the general election to a considerable number amounting to about 100,000.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am glad to have that explanation from the hon. Member. At the same time, it does not affect my argument that if we accept this Amendment we disfranchise a large number of women voters amounting to about 130,000.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: You only take away from them the second vote.

Sir V. HENDERSON: We deprive them of the choice of election which they now have and that, in a sense, is certainly a disfranchisement. The hon. Member for West Leicester went on to say that the business premises qualification was a privilege, and he referred to a statement made by the Home Secretary the other day. If we insist upon the retention of this paragraph I do not think that we shall be doing anything inconsistent with the statements which have been made on this point on behalf of the Government. I consider that the right provided for in paragraph (c) is just as much a right as the residential qualification. This right to be registered in respect of business premises has existed for a number of years, and there are many good grounds for retaining it.

Miss BONDFIELD: That is provided for in paragraph (b). We are now dealing with paragraph (c) which refers to the husband or the wife of a person entitled to be registered in respect of business premises.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not accept the suggestion that this is a privilege,
and I do not agree that in retaining this paragraph my right hon. Friend is going back upon what he has already said. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said that the only possible reason why we are inserting this paragraph is to increase the number of plural voters on the register. That may be the result, but that is not the reason why this provision is made. The reason for it is that we desire in this Bill to assimilate the existing electoral rights as between men and women, although, as a consequence, it may result in increasing the number of plural voters.

Sir J. SIMON: Would not assimilation be obtained by omitting paragraph (c)?

Sir V. HENDERSON: By omitting paragraph (c) we should be taking the vote from 120,000 or 130,000 women who have the right to vote at the present time. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley referred to the profession of which he is an adornment, and he gave an illustration relating to chambers in the City of London. I think it is always a mistake to take a particular profession and then lay down a general rule from something which applies to that profession. I would like to point out that the legal profession, of all professions, is about the last example we should take. To say that because one person is married and another is not, that the wife of the man who is married has no right to have a vote for the business carried on in her husband's chambers is not a very fair argument to use, because the man who is married has to maintain twice as much as the man who is not married: and therefore the lady who is responsible for the expenditure has some right to have a voice in the taxation of the country.

Mr. BROMLEY: She might vote against her husband.

Sir V. HENDERSON: May I point out the somewhat illogical attitude which some hon. Members opposite have taken on this question. When the Bill promoted by the Labour party dealing with this subject was going through the House in 1924, I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) in Committee un-
stairs brought forward an Amendment giving to the wives of occupiers of business premises the right to be registered at 21 for business premises, and subsequently the Labour party accepted an Amendment extending the same right to the women occupiers of business premises. Under these circumstances, I think it is somewhat late in the day for hon. Members opposite to argue against this particular paragraph, and they should recollect that when the Labour Government was in office and had an opportunity of dealing with this point they took no steps to deal with it in the Bill.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member correct in saying that a Government Measure was introduced in 1924?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am pointing out that the Amendment I referred to was moved by a member of the Labour party who was a Member of the Government.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill referred to by the hon. and gallant Member was a private Member's Bill.

Sir V. HENDERSON: That does not alter the fact that the Labour Government was then in power, and that they could have dealt with this matter.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill referred to was definitely introduced as a private Member's Bill. In Committee upstairs the Government was represented by a single representative, and they had no power to pass the Bill which did not come to the Report stage.

Sir V. HENDERSON: That does not alter my argument that an Amendment which was accepted by a Labour Government in Committee upstairs was exactly on all fours with the proposals which the Labour party are opposing to-day.

Mr. ADAMSON: That was not proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am sorry if I have confused the names. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) said it would be possible for a person to have six votes, but he or she would not be able to exercise them all. I see no reason why they should not have six
votes, and they should be allowed to choose which of those votes they will exercise. It is quite true that this principle was originally introduced in the Bill of 1918 and it forms part of the principle of plural voting. I think it would be out of order at the present moment to discuss that question generally, but I can assure hon. Members opposite that the Government cannot agree to the deletion of this particular paragraph, because it would have the effect of disfranchising between 120,000 and 130,000 women voters who already possess the double qualification. To omit paragraph (c) would be interfering with the rights of those women, and it would be going beyond the terms of the Bill itself in so far as assimilation is concerned. It would also be making a definite breach in the existing law with regard to plural voting, and for those, reasons the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I do not think we ought to be satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. The hon. and gallant Member dwelt upon the justice of allowing certain types of voters to vote in certain constituencies according to the different interests represented by them. If there is to be any logic in that position, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has based his case upon logic, I suggest that it would have to be carried very much further than the Government have done in this paragraph. Let me take the case of my own constituency and the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). There are working in my constituency large numbers of textile workers who reside in the constituency of my right hon. Friend, and, if it be claimed that people should have a vote in a constituency according to their interests, that claim should apply, not only to property-owners, but also to workers, and, if the interest of the worker in a woollen textile mill requires a vote in a certain direction, he has just as much right to be able to shift his vote, say, from the Colne Valley Division into the Huddersfield Division which I now represent. The position of my right hon. Friend, if I may say so in his absence, is a very secure one, and it might very well be that some of the votes which
made up his large majority might be transferred with advantage to me in any difficult election that might arise.
That is exactly the position—I hope I am not putting the case unfairly—that the Government has had in mind in introducing this paragraph. In a number of industrial constituencies their position at the next Election will be an extremely difficult one, and, if it is possible to transfer from dormitory constituencies, from Suburbia, the sort of votes provided for in this paragraph, those votes, even though they may be nothing like so numerous as the 5,000,000 women provided for in the Bill generally, will be so important from the point of view of the Government that I rather fancy that their minds are fixed a good deal more on this issue than on the general question of doing justice to the women of the country as a whole. I suggest to the Government that, if they really want to justify the claim that the Home Secretary has made, that they simply desire in this Measure to act justly by the women of the country, they ought to sink their particular desire to secure an electoral gain for themselves in the way that they have provided for in paragraph (c), and I hope that they will reconsider the position and will find it possible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: I waited with some interest to hear whether an effective answer would be given by the Under-Secretary to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) and others. It has been made perfectly clear that there can now be no reason whatever for continuing the system of plural voting. From the time when this Bill was introduced, and, indeed, in the course of the Debate to-day, the Home Secretary has been defending this Measure purely on a democratic basis. He has said more than once during the Debate that you cannot put the clock back, and yet this paragraph merely attempts to give one party an undue advantage in an Election. What can be the object of giving to a husband and wife, not six possible votes, but eight possible votes, which can be exercised in those constituencies where they are most effective? A husband and wife might have each a vote in respect of
residence, they might each have a vote in respect of the husband's business premises, they might each have a vote in respect of the wife's business premises, they might each have a University qualification; that is to say, there are eight possible qualifications which they might have.
The City of London will be teeming with plural votes. It is true that they will not be necessary there, but in many Divisions the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) will arise. If you are going to give this vote to a man in respect of his wife's business premises, or to a wife in respect of her husband's business premises, it is a logical conclusion that there should also be given to workmen working in one particular spot a vote in respect of the premises where they earn their living as well as in respect of their residence. There can be no answer to that, and there can be no justification for perpetuating now a system of plural voting which certainly must be condemned on the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to defend this scheme, namely, a democratic basis.

Mr. GILLETT: There cannot possibly be any ground on which the defence of this system as democratic could be justified, but there is another point to which reference has not, I think, hitherto been made in this Debate, and that is as to the effect that this system will have in different constituencies in different parts of the country. In a large constituency where the population is thinly scattered, this paragraph will have very little effect. Virtually, its effects will be seen only in great industrial centres, particularly in London, and it is in London that the party on the Opposition Benches will suffer most from it. A man living in a small town forming the centre, perhaps, of a large Parliamentary Division, may have a place of business in that town and may, possibly, live two or three miles away in a country house. The accident that his business premises and his place of residence happen to be in the same constituency means that he can only vote once in respect of both, although the two are quite as distinct as, and may be further apart than, is the case in many parts of London.
In London a man could have his business premises in the constituency which I represent, and which is close to the City, and might have his house in Islington, which would be only a mile or two away, and yet in those circumstances, according to this proposal, he and his wife would be entitled to vote both in the Borough of Finsbury and in the Borough of Islington. Although his business premises and his house might even be separated by only a few hundred yards, he and his wife would be entitled to record four votes at the election, while a man and his wife living miles away from their business in another part of the country would not be allowed to vote more than once each. If the question is considered in this light, the absurdity of the scheme becomes plain, and no one can defend it on the ground of democracy. When once you pass away from the principle of a vote for every man and woman to a property vote, you can argue in favour of limited companies having votes, and endless other things. There might be something to be said for this system if it were a question of the municipal vote, where divisions may be quite different and where a man and his wife might have to pay rates in different districts, but in this case it simply means a vote given to a certain kind of workman. I say "a certain kind of workman" because, if a man happens to be a paid working man with all his money invested in stocks and with only his one house, he has only one vote, while, on the other hand, he might be a man in quite a small way of business who happened to have two or three businesses. In the old days of private banking, it was quite common for a partner in a number of private banks to have a number of votes in different parts of the country. I agree that in this Bill the number of such votes is limited to two, but, as a London Member, I protest against the whole system, and especially against this paragraph, which makes what was bad worse.
In my own case, at the last election, the Tory party in Finsbury wrote round to the Tory voters whose wives had votes in places like Hampstead and so on, where the seats were safe, and told them not to waste their votes in places where the seat was safe, but to record them in Finsbury where there was a chance of winning a seat. On that
occasion, fortunately, they were disappointed. I am not very much concerned about this Measure in that regard, because I think they did their worst at the last election. Possibly only a limited number of ladies will be brought into Finsbury under this paragraph, and it may be that, as the working girls will have their vote, I shall be able to square my account with the Home Secretary as far as that is concerned. I think, however, that it is wholly inequitable that, simply because these ladies' husbands have small business places in Finsbury, they should be entitled to come down there and upset the balance of opinion of people actually living in the district, by giving votes which can in no way be defended from the point of view of democracy. So far from being democratic, this is purely reactionary and is more worthy of what is usually associated with the right hon. Gentleman than of the democratic principles of which he has spoken this afternoon, and which I wish he would carry out in actual practice by accepting the Amendment. If he would do that, I should really believe that he is becoming a democrat in fact as well as in theory.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I think it right that someone on this side other than a Member of the Government should say a word or two on this paragraph. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) resorted, if I may say so, to the very old form of mistaken argument based upon a bad case. Hard cases make bad law, and, when my right hon. and learned Friend selected the case of the barrister in the Temple whose wife could come down to vote in the City of London, he selected the worst case that could be selected. Apart from barristers, men who carry on business are very often assisted by their wives in carrying on their business, and women who carry on businesses are sometimes assisted by their husbands in carrying on those businesses. Is it right that a man should have a, vote for his place of business in addition to his place of residence? I say most emphatically that it is.
8.0 p.m.
Let us take, instead of Huddersfield, a far more interesting town—Sheffield. A cutler of Sheffield, not necessarily a rich man at all, but a working cutler, has a place of business. His wife is as much in-
terested in the business as he is himself. If it is right that he should have a vote in the business part of the City, he has an equal right to a vote in the place where he lives. Why should he not have a vote for the place where he and his wife live? That is conceded. It is greatly to the public advantage that he should also have a right of voting for the person who is to represent the place where he carries on his business. I should not in the least mind the principle being extended to the working class voter if you could do it, but of course you cannot. That is his misfortune. The

idea that any system of franchise we have ever had has been logical, or that it would be any the better if it had been, is one of the most unreasonable things I have ever heard. Fortunately, public affairs are not governed by logic. They never have been, and I hope to Heaven they never will be. I am supporting the paragraph on practical grounds, and I hope the Government will stand firm and will keep it in its place.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 138.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[8.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmonson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lougher, Lewis


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Albery, Irving James
Everard, w. Lindsay
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley, L. R.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macintyre, Ian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
McLean, Major A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Frece, Sir Walter de
Macmillan, Captain H.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bethel, A.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gates, Percy
Malone, Major P. B.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Briggs, J. Harold
Gower, sir Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Oakley, T.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hamilton, Sir George
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burman, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Phillpson, Mabel


Cassels, J. D.
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pilcher, G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Cant. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Preston, William


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Radford, E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Raine, Sir Walter


Clarry, Reginald George
Hills, Major John Waller
Ramsden, E.


Clayton, G. C.
Hilton, Cecil
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Remnant, Sir James


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd. Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Huntingfield, Lord
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Salmon, Major I.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Joynson-Hicks. Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. O.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Dixey, A. C.
Lister. Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Skelton, A. N.


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Smithers, Waldron
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Waddington, R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Withers, John James


Steel, Major Samuel String
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Womersley, W. J.


Storry-Deans, H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W W.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.



Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Amman, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)


Baker, Walter
Mayday, Arthur
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sakiatvala, shapurji


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sexton, James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Briant, Frank
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Rennie (Penistons)


Charleton, H. C,
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


England, Colonel A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
March. S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Purcell. A. A.



Grundy, T. W.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington)—in page 2, to leave out from the word "constituency" in line 16 to the end of the paragraph—is out of order. It is in no sense within the Title of the Bill. That refers equally to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir "R. Sanders)—in page 2, line IT, to leave out the words "borough or Parliamentary."
That would be an amendment of the existing law, and not an assimilation as between the two sexes. The next two Amendments are consequential on something already dealt with.

CLAUSE 2.—(Assimilation of local government franchise of men and women.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments are consequential. The
next, in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)—in page 3, line 28, to insert the words
(1) in the event of the death of a person during the period qualifying such person to be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for a local government electoral area any other person who would but for such death ho entitled at the end of the said qualifying period to be registered as a local government elector by reason of being a husband or wife, as the case may be, shall if he or she continue from the date of such death till the end of the qualifying period to occupy as owner or tenant the land or premises lately occupied by the deceased person be deemed to be entitled to be registered as such local government elector for the register next following such death as if such death had not taken place—
is also an amendment of the existing law, and not an assimilation.

Clause 3 (Consequential amendments) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 8 of Principal Act.)

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden)—in page 4, to leave out from the word "constituency" in line 21 to the end of the Clause—is not in order. It is an amendment of the existing law.

CLAUSE 5.—(Special provisions with respect to register of electors to be made in 1929.)

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after the word "end," to insert the words
in Scotland on the fifteenth day of December and elsewhere.
In Scotland our terms of removal are somewhat different from those in England, and that has been recognised in previous Acts of Parliament. Undoubtedly certain removals take place, or are apt to take place, during the first weeks of December, and therefore 1st December is not a very happy date for terminating the qualifying period, because immediately after it certain removals make take place, and the address in respect of which the person qualified is registered may be the old and not the
new address. Therefore, we thought it would be more convenient and more practicable to make the date 15th December, and we propose that in the case of Scotland that should be the date of the termination of the qualifying period.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should just like in a word to express on behalf of the Scottish Members on this side of the House their complete agreement with the Amendment which has been moved by the Lord Advocate. Had the Bill passed as it stood the situation would have been this. At what we call fee time, the 28th November, there are always large numbers of farm servants and others taking service for the ensuing six months. It would have been impossible for the registration officers to have put these men and women on the role between the period of the 28th November and the 1st December, which is the date at present standing in the Bill. The alteration which the Lord Advocate has moved to extend the qualifying period to the 15th December, as far as we can see, meets the difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, after the word "force," to insert the words:
in the case of Northern Ireland, until the fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty, and in any other case.
These are really words which should have been inserted in the Bill as it was originally drafted, but which,, owing to an oversight, were left out. The register in Northern Ireland always comes into force on the 15th day of December, and therefore it is necessary as far as the register is concerned that these words should be inserted.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain to us why the date of this register in Northern Ireland is extended so far beyond the date that the register is to obtain in this country. I cannot quite follow this, because it says to 1930.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I explained to the right hon. Gentleman. He is reading the wrong Amendment. The Amendment particularly refers to the period.

Mr. HENDERSON: The Amendment which I understand to be before the Committee at the moment is the Amendment
to line 42. If this is not the Amendment the hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved, perhaps he had better put the matter right.

Sir V. HENDERSON: It is proposed to be the 15th December, 1930, in the case of Northern Ireland and the 15th October, 1930, in any other case. There is only a disparity of two months.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask how this is going to affect the subsequent Amendment—in page 4,, line 44, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-nine"—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)? If this Amendment is permitted to be embodied in the Bill, there seems to be very little possibility of any consideration being given to the sub sequent Amendment. I think that we ought to have some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to what action is likely to be taken on the following Amendment.

Sir V. HENDERSON: It, would be out of order for me to make any such statement. I do not think really that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) need have any concern about this matter. It has always been the custom for the register in Northern Ireland to come into operation on the 15th December just as it does in this country in October. The qualifying period in this country is such that the new register is to remain in force until October, 1930, and it is necessary for it to remain in force until December, 1930, in Northern Ireland.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the whole point. We are by an Amendment later on challenging the date of 1930, and propose to insert 1929. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raises is that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is carried now and our Amendment is carried later on the whole thing may appear ridiculous. We want to be assured that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is carried now, it will be proper for us to move our Amendment later on, and that the Bill will read sense if the two Amendments are carried.

The CHAIRMAN: There is nothing as a matter of order to prevent the hon.
Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) from moving his Amendment, even if this Amendment be carried. It might produce some anomaly if both were carried, but it could be adjusted no doubt on Report. But, as a matter of order, there is really nothing in this Amendment which prejudices the next one.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, to leave out the word "thirty," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-nine."
The Committee will pardon me if I refer, first of all, to the provisions of the Act of 1918. The Act of 1918 provided that there should be two registers, each of which should operate for six months. By the provisions of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Economy) Act, which was passed not very long ago, since two registers in one year were abolished, and we have been given one annual register. That has been done merely to secure economy in printing and avoid the trouble of surveying the electorate. In this Bill, however, the period is still further extended, and we are not quite satisfied that the. Government are doing the right thing in regard to the electorate in producing a register and keeping it operative for such a long period. Let us see what it means. The Clause with which we are dealing at the moment provides that:
The qualifying period for the purpose of the register of electors to be made in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine shall end on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
It states further:
The said register shall come into force on the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.
Later on it proceeds to say,
and shall, notwithstanding anything in this Section, continue in force until the fifteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty.
That means that from the 1st May, 1929, until the 15th October, 1930, there will be only one register operative. That may be all right from the Government's point of view, but let us see what the electorate may think of this. You have a period, as I have said, from May in one year to October in the next year. That is a very long time indeed. Let us see what the consequences may be. This Bill is going to enfranchise, if I remember rightly,
about 5,000,000 young women. What about the hundreds of thousands of young people who will become 21 within that long period I have referred to? They will be eligible so far as age is concerned, and their residential qualifications and their business qualifications will be all right, and in harmony with the provisions of the Act, but, because the register is extended from May in one year to October in the next, they may not be able to vote at the general election at all. Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must give us an explanation as to why the Government has decided to extend the period in this way. Let me repeat this in order to get the matter in proper perspective. We had, first of all, two registers in the year. Then we come to one register in a year. Now, lo and behold, we come to one register almost for two years. That is extending the period unduly. I feel sure that I can carry the Committee, at any rate, to this point, that we ought to have an explanation from the Government as to why it is intended to do this.
I am a little suspicious as to why this course is being proposed. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have to say about the next general election. What have the Government in mind? It will be worth while knowing what the Government really intend, because there must be a design behind these words from the Government's point of view; otherwise, they would not be inserted. The Amendment which I am proposing is that instead of the register being made operative from May in one year to October in the next, we shall have two registers next year, one for May and one for October, in order to give, Its I have said, an opportunity to the very large number of persons who will arrive at the age of 21 of taking part in the general election whenever it may come. As I have said, the Amendment which I propose is a very reasonable one, and I trust, at any rate, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us some explanation as to why this great disparity between May in one year and October in the next is being brought about in respect of the first register under this Measure, which is designed, so we are told, to give the electors of Great Britain a better chance to take part in Parliamentary elections than they have
ever had in their lives. I want to know why the Government, having made such a statement, should now come forward with a proposal which will deprive hundreds of thousands of young people of the opportunity of getting on to the register at all.

Sir V. HENDERSON: I think the Committee will realise that the first reason which has actuated the Government in making such a register was that it was quite impossible—anybody who has had experience of politics will realise it—for the registration officers to get the new electors on to the new register which comes into force on the 15th October this year. Because of the qualifying period which is necessary, we could not get this Bill into law in time to give the registration officers the necessary power to take into account the qualifying period for the register on the 13th October. That being the case, it was necessary to have a new register, and we have fixed the 1st May of next year as the earliest convenient date at which the new register can be prepared, without overlapping with the work of preparing the other register. Therefore, it surely seems reasonable if we are to have an election next year, as we must. have by Statute, that we should try for the purpose of economy to save the expense of having another register next year, in addition to the May register, which is not likely to be required for the purpose of the election.
It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said, that we shall, technically speaking, theoretically speaking, be depriving a certain number of people of the opportunity of obtaining a vote as soon as they otherwise would do under normal circumstances, but it must be remembered that we are by the process of bringing in a new register on the 1st of May giving an equally large number of people the privilege of having a vote 5½ months sooner than they would otherwise do. Therefore, it is as broad as it is long. It is true that those particular people who would normally have come on to the register on the 15th October next year will not, if this Clause passes as it stands, come on until October of the following year, but the chances of a General Election occurring between those two dates is extremely remote, and the Government do not think that we should be justified, in these circumstances, in incurring an ex-
penditure of some 1600,000 simply and solely for the purpose of providing for an eventuality which is not likely to arise. Therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the Under-Secretary must have forgotten the experience of 1922–23 and 1924.

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, and I am not likely to forget it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If he has not forgotten that experience he must be a political optimist if he is looking forward to long periods of political stability after the General Election of 1929. Assuming that his optimism can be fully justified, there still remains some justification for submitting this Amendment. There are movements afoot at this moment for the purpose of migrating unemployed workers from one part of the country to another, and by extending the length of time between the various registers you will always render a very large number of people liable to lose their chance of voting at an election. My own Parliamentary Division is, perhaps, one of the best examples in the whole country. There you have six or eight new collieries, which are developing almost every week, and there is a constant movement of workers from one colliery to another, from one district to another. In the period of two years it may very well he that half these people would be disfranchised from voting in the district where they happened to reside when the election ultimately took place. Therefore the. Under-Secretary must see that the wider in length of time we make the compiling of the register the more people will be disfranchised from voting in the district where they reside at the time of the election.
We know from past experience that where miners are moving from one district to another, in the short space of 12 months very large numbers of people have been disfranchised unless they were able and willing to travel from six up to 10 miles from the place where they resided to the place where they happened to be on the register at the last Election.
If we concede the point that the Government are looking at the question from the point of view of economy in a Bill of this description, which is conferring voting power upon large numbers of people because it is felt necessary in order to do the right and just thing, we
ought not in the same Bill do anything which is calculated to deprive a large number of people of the opportunity and privilege of voting when an election takes place. The question of economy compared with the question of disfranchising large numbers of people cannot very well, or ought not to guide the Government in their final decision The work of the Migration Board and the acknowledged fact that there are a quarter of a million people who must be sent from one part of the country to another, represent a problem worthy of further consideration, and I hope that if the Under-Secretary is unable to accept the Amendment now, he will assure us that he will give it further consideration before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament which would disfranchise thousands of people who, through no fault of their own, are obliged to move from one district to another in search of work and a livelihood.

Mr. MORRIS: I join in the hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this Amendment. There is special reason for urging the acceptance of this Amendment in view of the fact that the register will begin, one in May of next year, and that there will not be another register for a period of 18 months. By this Bill you are enfranchising a new class of person; women of 21 years will be enfranchised for the first time, but the woman who is barely 21, say, 20 years and 11 months at the time of the making of the register next May, will not be entitled to exercise her vote for a further period of 18 months until she is nearly 23 years of age. You are enfranchising a new class at 21 and taking away the vote from another class. I cannot understand the argument put forward by the Under-Secretary that the Government are not producing a register at the proper time in October next year, because of economy. The Government are selecting the period of May for the production of the register and are selecting that period obviously for their own convenience, in view of the Dissolution next year. There can be no special merit in selecting the date of May next year. Why not make the registration period terminate in October of this year and also in October of next year? This register affects not only the Parliamentary election but the municipal elections. If a person is
unable to get on the register by May of next year there is no further opportunity to do so for 18 months. There can be no justification for this, and I hope the Government will reconsider the position and accept the Amend went.

Miss WILKINSON: There is just one point that I desire to bring to the attention of the Committee, and that is that whenever you have a new register, bringing in new classes of voters, you necessarily have a large number of mistakes. This is inevitable. You have mistakes in the people who ought to be on and are left off, and you have numbers of people who do not claim the vote because they do not realise the new position. This always takes place. It was notoriously so in 1918, when a very large number of people were put on the register for the first time who were not entitled to the vote. I was one, whilst others were left off who ought to have been put on. I think it is a pity that a period of 18 months is to elapse before you can correct the mistakes of the new register. I should like to know whether it is not possible to have some arrangement by which a supplementary register might be prepared in order to provide for those people who ought to have been on the register and were left off. The point is that they would not be able to get a local government election vote, which election takes place during the period during which the Under-Secretary imagines no General Election is likely to take place. If this is possible it would mitigate one of the hardships. Our experience, shows that when you have a Parliament with a narrow majority General Elections come at short notice. That was notoriously the case in 1922 and 1924. I hope the country will realise what it has had to put up with from the present Government and will have the good sense to give a large majority to the party sitting on these benches, which will make recurring General Elections unnecessary. That. however, does not meet the point I have raised with regard to mistakes in the new register, and I should like to know whether some arrangement can be made in order to deal with that point.

Mr. PALING: The Under-Secretary of State has stated that they were giving a six months' register in place of a 12
months' register, and he puts it forward as a virtue. The fact that the register has to be made in May next year is the Government's own fault. If they had brought in the Bill earlier it would not have been necessary, and the fact that they are making it six months earlier does not compensate those many people who will have to wait for 18 months afterwards before they can be put on the register.—I think there should be another register in October, 1929, rather than in October, 1930. In the case of an election new machinery will have to be devised. It will be a new experience; there will be a certain amount of confusion due to the fact that it is an entirely new register, and as there will be such a huge addition to the electorate, it may be that the. First register will not satisfactory. Many people will be left off who ought to have been on, and if you have another register in six months' time it will give you an early opportunity of rectifying any mistakes that have been made. Let me put another point. The old register was made every six months, and I imagine that the six-monthly period was discussed thoroughly before it was agreed to. Then we altered it, under the Economy Act to a 1.g months' register, but I do not believe that, anybody even on the Government Benches suggested that a 12 months' register was better than a six months' register. Everybody agreed that a six months register worked best. It was done purely for economy's sake. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to save money, and he saved it at the expense of the electors.
I represent a constituency which will be very hard hit by this proposal. Owing to the shifting population in the mining areas it is said that hardly one out of three has a vote at the present moment, and this shifting population will continue for years before it becomes settled. In districts like my own an 18 months' register will he a very serious thing from the point of view of the injustice which will be done, to many hundreds of people who will not be able to get on to the register. The question of economy ought not to weigh to any great extent. It only means one register extra in 1929. It will not happen every year, and, therefore, the question of expense ought not to weigh against the possibility of hundreds of thousands of voters being off
the register. I hope it is pot too late for the' Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. RILEY: I desire to put only one or two points in order to emphasise the desirability of accepting the Amendment. It is admitted that there will be a period of 18 months during which there will be no revision of the register, although the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill at the moment does not think there is any likelihood of an election occurring between June, 1928, and October, 1929. At the same time we have the experience of 1922 and 1924 to guide us, and also the striking experience of 1910, when two elections took place in one year, the first in January and the second in. December. Therefore, it is obvious that a second election before October, 1929, is not a remote contingency. It does not seem fair or equitable to subject thousands of people who will mature in qualification between May, 1929, and October, 1930, to the danger of deprivation of the vote. The second point is that the objection to the Amendment has been put very largely on the ground of the possible expense of £600,000.

Sir V. HENDERSON: Not the possibility but the certainty.

Mr. RILEY: What are the facts? The Government will have the expense of preparing this first enlarged register. That expense has to be incurred. The Register is to come into force in May of 1929. If there were a second register compiled in October, 1929, there would be a period of only six months intervening, and in that time there would be nothing like the changes to be dealt with that would be inevitable if there were an intervening period of 18 months. Therefore the argument that the expense would be anything like that which has been stated is not borne out by the facts.

Mr. GROVES: There seems to be some doubt on the part of the Minister. We have all heard of the enormous number of houses that the Government promise to build. What is going to happen to the people who occupy those houses between May, 1929, and October, 1930? They may be people who have reached 21 by May of 1929. They may marry and go into these new houses, which are supposed to be among the blessings of the Government. What is going to happen to them with an 18 months' register?
They will be disfranchised. A cost of £600,000 would be a trifle in comparison with the blessings that the Conservative party profess to bestow on the people.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will not the Under-Secretary make some reply to the questions which have been put, particularly with regard to developing areas and migratory populations?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I realise, of course, that there is a certain amount of migration from one district to another, but that is already covered to some extent under the existing election law, by what is known as the law of succession. While it may riot be wholly covered, I do not think that the hardship is as great as hon. Members have suggested. It may be necessary to traverse some miles of country, but from my knowledge of four elections I cannot say that I have heard of inability to vote because of lack of means of getting to the polling station. The point raised by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) I realise is a point of substance. While I can give no pledge, I will look into the matter from the point of view of the omissions and mistakes that may occur from a large number of people being put on the register at one time. I could not agree to the bringing in of a new register but would have to proceed by rectifying definite errors. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but I will look into the question between now and the Report stage.

Mr. VIANT: Has any consideration been given to the subject of local elections? So far we have been discussing Parliamentary elections only. They may be very important, but under the existing circumstances and the dates allotted for making up the register, there will be a hardship upon a large number of local electors. Local elections will arise during the interim, and large numbers of persons who would otherwise be qualified to vote will find, owing to the date stated here, that they will be disqualified to vote for any local elections or by-elections that take place. We are entitled to ask that the Under-Secretary shall satisfy the House that some provision is to be made so that local elections are not to suffer because of the
desire to economise. The performance stand part of the of a citizen's function of voting ought to weigh more heavily with us than so called economy.

Question put, "That the Word 'thirty' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 206; Noes, 130.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[8.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pennefather, Sir John


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Perring, Sir William George


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Applin, Colonel R. v. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Pilcher, G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Atkinson, C.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Preston, William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Grotrian, H. Brent
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsden, E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hamilton, Sir George
Rawton, Sir Cooper


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bethel, A.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Remnant, Sir James


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rice, Sir Frederick.


Braithwaite, Major A. N
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. 1.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Walter
Salmon, Major I.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cassels, J. D.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Christie, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel String


Clayton, G. C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Storry-Deans, R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Long, Major Eric
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cooper, A. Dud
Looker, Herbert William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major William
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen. South'


Couper, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waddingtan, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macintyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-e.-M.;
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Erskine, James Malcolm Manteith
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Withers, John James


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Womersley, W. J.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ford, Sir p. J.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Frece, Sir Walter de
Oakley, T.
Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E-
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Amman, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Baker, Walter
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfleid, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindley, F. W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R.(Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M,
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Wright, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pureed, A. A.
Whiteley.


Groves, T.
Flees, Sir Beddoe



Question put, and agreed to.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. JOYNBON-HICKS:

In page 5, line 10, at the beginning, to insert the words "In England and Wales and Scotland."

In line 11, to leave out the words "(or, in Northern Ireland, on the fifteenth day of December)."

In line 15, at the end, to add the words
(4) In Northern Ireland the register of electors which came into force on the fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, shall continue in force until the first day of May nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and a register of electors shall not be made in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-eight,

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Home Secretary does not propose to move the series of Amendments concerning Northern Ireland.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the case. This series of Amendments relates to Northern Ireland, and, as there are
some points for consideration in connection with them, I propose not to move them until a later stage.

CLAUSE 6.—(Local government franchise in Scotland.)

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacRobert): I beg to move, in page 6, line 44, after the word "government" to insert the word "electoral."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Short title, construction and application.)

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 31, to leave out from "1926," to the end of the Sub-section.
These words are not necessary, and this is only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: There are several proposed New Clauses on the Paper dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses. If the first proposed New Clause, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) gets a Second Reading, then any proposed variations can be moved as Amendments to that Clause. Should the first proposed New Clause on the Paper fail to get a Second Reading, these other proposals would lapse.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Maximum, scale of election expenses.)

The Fourth Schedule to the principal Act (which relates to the maximum scale of election expenses) shall have effect, as if for the word "sevenpence" there were substituted the word "sixpence" and as if for the word "fivepence" there were substituted the word "fourpence"—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
During the discussions this afternoon on the Instruction and in several speeches during the Second Reading Debate the question of the cost of Elections was fully considered. We all know that many constituencies already are exceedingly heavy in this respect. We have places like Coventry and Kensington and Burnley. In Burnley there are nearly 52,000 electors and when this Bill passes into law there will be from 64,000 to 66,000 electors.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: What about Rom-ford with 72,000?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am merely taking these as examples, and I know there are a number of such cases. Under the existing law, the scale of expenses is 7d. in counties and 5d. in boroughs and the New Clause proposes to make those amounts 6d. and 4d. respectively. This is a matter, I think, that need not be looked at in any sense as a party question. I think that both sides of the House will agree that the heavy cost of
Elections in recent years has been such as to make an impression upon Members of Parliament everywhere. You can run up to £1,100, £1,200, £1,300, or £1,400, and when we get, as I think this Bill will give us, something like 8,000 to 14,000 additional electors—the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that makes a very serious charge upon the individual candidate who may be engaged in the contest, no matter to which party he belongs. Then, as I mentioned during the Second Reading Debate, in addition to the maximum expenses that may be involved, there is the £100 limit for personal expenses, and £75 and £50 respectively in boroughs and counties for the services of an agent. That makes a very serious charge.
We have heard a great deal to-day with regard to the question of democracy. It is right, I think, to base the government of the country upon the broadest electorate possible, and if you are going to carry out democracy logically you ought to make it as easy as is possible for candidates to be returned to this House without any poverty bar. I have already shown that the expense, as the law stands at present, is exceedingly heavy, and no very great hardship can be inflicted upon any candidate if we try, even with the new additions to the electorate, to leave the expenses somewhere near what is the maximum to-day instead of allowing them to be increased on the 7d. and the 5d. pro rata to the increase in the electorate. No matter how long we debate it, that is the case, and without taking up further time, I hope the Home Secretary will see his way clear to accept this Clause.

Captain BOURNE: As I was responsible for moving the Instruction to the Committee which has enabled this Clause to be brought up, I wish to say that personally, shall support it in the Lobby if it goes to a Division. I do not say that perhaps it might not require certain amendments in detail, but in principle I am thoroughly in favour of not increasing the amount of election expenses falling upon candidates. The scale which at present exists was drawn up by the Ullswater Conference in 1917 or 1918, and it was calculated, I think, very carefully on what would be the necessary expenses of a
candidate who wished to put his case fully before a constituency of average size. I do not think that anyone in the House will contend that a large increase in the electorate of necessity greatly increases the expense. After all, I have fought elections myself, and I have found that the expenses may be divided under about three heads.
One of your large items is printing, which does not increase in proportion to the number of copies of the document ordered. The main expense in connection with any printed document is the setting up of the type in the first instance. It is true that labour in striking it off and the amount of material used add something to the cost, but the cost does not increase with every thousand copies in proportion. The first thousand are far more expensive than the second thousand, and when you get into 30,000 or 40,000, the last thousand are a matter of very trilling extra expense to the printer and ought not to be a large item on the candidate. Another big item that we all have to face is in connection with meetings. Most of us do as many meetings as we possibly can in the time allotted to us, and the limit there is the limit which we, as human beings, can stand. I do not think that, where the electorate is increased by 25 per cent., as is proposed in this Bill, there should be any earthly reason why the bill for our meeting expenses should rise. Many people do four or five meetings a night right through an election, and nothing on earth will enable them to do more, except the invention of some kind of machine which may enable them to be in two places at once.
The other large item which we get is in connection with postal and miscellaneous expenses, committee rooms, and so forth. We cannot very well use more committee rooms than we do at present. It is possible that, if the electorate is increased, we may have one or two more polling stations, but it is not likely that there will be much extension in that direction. Most of those overhead charges are constant, and will remain constant whatever the size of our electorate. There are certain items which will go up. Our printing bills wilt slightly increase, but posters, if we use them, will be much the same for an electorate of 50,000 as for one of 40,000.
and I believe the expenses of the agent are constant whatever the size of this electorate. Therefore, I submit that there is no necessity to raise the expenses in proportion to the number of the electorate.
As I said earlier this afternoon, these very high election expenses are a great deterrent to people coming forward, especially people who might make excellent representatives of constituencies, but who have, first, to ask what are the election expenses, and, when told the amount that they are expected to find, are very often scared away. This is riot a question that comes before the central party machine. It is only known to those who run the local associations, how many candidates are scared away by election expenses, especially if elections are likely to be held at fairly short intervals. I can speak with sonic feeling on this subject, because I know what it means to have election expenses time after time, as I fought three elections in 10 months. In my case, luckily, the expenses were not very heavy, but they come as a very serious burden when you have to face them at short intervals, and I feel that anything which adds to that difficulty and to the weight that the candidate has to bear is a thing against which this Committee should try and protect the candidate.
If we restrict the expenditure—and, after all if this Clause is carried, it will pretty roughly keep the expenses at about the same as they are to-day; it will not substantially increase the amount that the candidates are entitled to spend—it may be urged that we shall, in consequence, be in grave danger of losing our seats on petition, owing to over spending of the allotted amount. There is probably no Member in this House who runs a greater risk in that respect than I do myself. I have entered this House after a petition on election expenses in my own constituency, and T know that, if I make, or if my agent makes, a slip of a single halfpenny in the return, I shall have a petition against me. I am willing to face that risk, but T do not think that that is any reason why people should not carry their expenses through within the limit provided in this Clause if they will exercise a reasonable amount of caution. A great deal of money spent in elections is wasted and many of the things on
which it is spent come down to us from the Eatanswill Election. To-day, those expenses are no longer necessary, and I feel that for this large electorate, which is literate, and not illiterate as it used to be, half the posters and half the things on which one's money is spent are not necessary. We could largely carry on with no loss of efficiency on the scale proposed in this Clause.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I hope that the expenses for boroughs will not be altered. With an increased electorate, we shall need all the money available. [Laughter.] Though there may be certain constituencies that can well afford to diminish their expenses, there are others that will undoubtedly need the money for various extra expenses that are bound to crop up with an increased electorate. The hon. Gentlemen who laughed just now can well afford to laugh, for the principal reason that, when they speak at their meetings, they are heard; when we speak at our meetings, we are very often not heard. For that reason, it is necessary for us to send round more publications and more pamphlets, and to do various things which may at any moment crop up. There are members of my own party who tell us—only a few—that they will be able to get on just as well on the lower basis. That is good for them, but why, because a few are able to do it, should the whole be penalised? It is a matter of arrangement. You have a certain amount which you may spend, and if you do not wish to spend it, well, do not spend it. I do not know how the Socialist party manage these miracles, but in my last two elections they held as many meetings as I did; they had as much propaganda as I had, and, as far as I could see, our elections were run on similar lines. Yet, while my return was something like £600, that of my Labour opponent was something in the nature of £350. [Laughter.] The Labour party can afford to laugh. That being the case, surely it is all the more reason why we should maintain the present rates.
There are doubtless sources of voluntary labour and other methods by which the Socialist party are able to keep down their expenses. I do not think any of us need make any bones about it, but our party, as a party, do not give that
amount of voluntary work that we would like them to give. I am not giving away a secret; I admit it is a shame, and it is true, and we have to face facts. I am convinced that, if we reduce the costs in the boroughs, we are making a present to the Socialist party. It is a pity that the Franchise Bill should be dealt with on party lines. I have always been in favour of the vote for women, and I am still more in favour of it to-day after the various amusing speeches that we have heard from those who seem to be a little afraid of the ladies, in this House at any rate, if nowhere else. Apart from that, I consider that this particular question does touch the question of politics, because, whereas elections are run on comparatively equal lines, the amount which is spent by Members of my party are possibly in the region of £600, while the Opposition are able to get the same result, except that in their case they do not always get in, for about half the cost.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the hon. Member ever tried to rouse the enthusiasm of the members of the Primrose League for the magnificence of their cause?

Mr. CAMPBELL: Perhaps that would be an advantage. I certainly admit that I lost the first election, and then I got more enthusiasm and won. I maintain that it will be a disaster to the Conservative party if they reduce these rates. If people do not wish to spend the money, they need not do so, but there are constituencies—and every Member will admit that mine is one of them—where it may be necessary to spend up to the last farthing.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I hope the Committee will give this new Clause a Second Reading. I speak as a county Member, and I do not profess, like my hon. Friend who has just sat down, to be able to say what is best for the boroughs, or for any particular party in the boroughs. As regards the counties, I have been into the matter carefully, and I have had considerable experience of electioneering, both on my own behalf, and from having taken part for a good many years in the work of the Central Office of the party. My deliberate opinion is that, if the reduction per head proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were effective in the case of
the counties, it would still be possible to work elections perfectly sufficiently and efficiently on the money that would be produced by the 6d. per head, because the increase that would come if you left the amount at 7d. per head is a great deal more than the increase of expenditure that would be necessary to compensate for the extra outlay.
After all, a good many of the expenses which we have to pay are constant, and to give a large extra sum for election expenses, as would happen if the rate of 7d remained unaltered, would mean that there would be a considerable sum available in regard to which there would be no expenses to meet. It may be said that you need not spend that sum, but my experience is that if your agent is worth his salt, you generally do spend the whole, or pretty nearly the whole of what you are allowed to spend. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I know that hon. Members opposite do not do it, but that has been my experience. Take the constituency with a very large number of electors. I dare say it is different there, because the necessary expense does not increase in proportion to the number of electors, and a great many of your expenses are constant whatever the number of electors may be. When you are fighting in rather small constituencies of under 30,000 or thereabouts, however, my experience has been that it always works out that you spend pretty nearly what your election expenses are allowed to be.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has already gone through the various items of elections, and I need not do so again. The largest item is generally that for printing and stationery. That is an item that would increase to a certain extent but not pro rata to the additional number of electors. There may be exceptions here and there in one or two constituencies where the sixpence per head would not produce, on the extended franchise, appreciably more than the 7d. per head does now. If you work the thing out, wherever the increase is over 16└ per cent., you will get an increase in your money to spend if you reduce the 7d. to 6d. In the great majority-90 per cent. I should think—of the constituencies, you will get a greater increase owing to this new legislation than the 16└ per cent., so that, in the vast majority of country con-
stituencies, you are going to get an increase in spite of the reduction of one penny. As far as I can see, that increase will be enough to meet the extra expense. That is with regard to the counties. As to the boroughs, it seems to me that the whole question is absolutely different, because if you work it out, you are working not on a margin of 16⅓ per cent. but on a margin of 25 per cent. In a great many of the boroughs, if you reduce the 5d. to 4d., you will get an actual diminution in the expenses which are allowed, and that puts the case on a different footing altogether. You cannot say that there will be a certain amount of extra money in the case of the boroughs that will compensate for the extra expense, because in a great many cases there is no extra money at all, and undoubtedly there will be some extra expense. Therefore, I am not going to say, at this moment, that the boroughs may not have a case for maintaining the old scale. I want to hear further arguments about that. From what I have heard up to the present, I shall certainly support the Second Reading of the Clause, but I hold myself quite open, and as at present advised I should support the Amendment to be proposed by some of my hon. Friends to let the scale in the case of the boroughs remain what it is at present.
Therefore, I hope the Committee will give the Clause a Second Reading. The Amendment with regard to the boroughs will come up later. That is a separate case, and I hold myself quite open to vote—and I shall probably do so—for leaving things as they are in the case of boroughs. I hope that a Second Reading may he given to the Clause, and I put it to the Home Secretary that I do think this is most emphatically a Measure that ought to be left to the free vote of the House. We may have been wrong or right, but certainly we did understand from what had been said from the Front Bench before, that this question was to be left to the House to speak for itself. What I wish should be done is that. a Second Reading should be given to this new Clause and that, if it is so wished, the boroughs may be cut out, and both these matters may he left to a free vote of the House.

Mr. MORRIS: Like the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this new Clause. It becomes
very important, especially in view of the arguments underlying the Clause, namely, that it is based on a democratic basis and that this House itself shall be elected upon a fully democratic basis. I called attention to this fact on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the opportunity is now given to reinforce that position. Unless the House is so elected, as the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) said in the early part of the Debate, and unless there is a free selection by the divisions made possible, then the democratic principle which we seek to extend by the Bill is nullified by the increase in the powers of the caucus or by the limitation on the selection of candidates.
The new Clause seeks to limit the expenditure upon election expenses, and that becomes highly necessary with the increased electors. In the boroughs, particularly, the problem will be increased to a larger extent than in the county divisions. As it is now, the expenses amount roughly to £1,200 for an electorate of about 35,000. An increase of £300 upon that becomes a serious item for the candidate to meet. Unless he is a rich man, he has to find the money from the party funds, and if he is an honourable man, and he turns to the party funds for assistance, he must then give absolute allegiance to the party Whips and cannot exercise an independent vote. After all, men are sent to this House to represent the views of a constituency, and to exercise a free and an independent opinion in accordance with the views of the people who send them here. It becomes a serious matter for the constituency to be asked to put their hands into their pockets for every election, and particularly if elections are to come as frequently as every two or three years, as has been suggested. To find about £100 becomes a serious matter to every Member of the House. If you tie the hands of hon. Members of this House, you are striking a serious blow at the prestige of the House.
It was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) that with the increase in the electorate in recent years there has been a corresponding decrease in the prestige of this House itself, and a corresponding decrease in respect for the decisions of
the House. There is some degree of truth in that, and to the extent to which you tie Members to the party chest or limit membership of this House to rich men so you will give still greater force to that criticism. You are aiming a direct blow at the chief free institution of this country. For that reason I hope the Government will see their way to accept, at any rate, the Second Reading of this Clause, if not necessarily accepting the Clause in its present form. To do so will assist to enhance or maintain the prestige of this House, and we can scarcely accomplish that unless we do accept this new Clause in sonic form or another. I understood from the Home Secretary that when he intimated to the House that there was to be free discussion he was prepared to accept this new Clause in some form because it undoubtedly meets the desires of the vast majority of Members of this House and, equally certain, the desires of the vast majority of the constituencies.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I am one of those who are rather doubtful whether it is wise to cut down the amount per head which a candidate is to be allowed to spend in an election at the present time. I am speaking particularly on behalf of the boroughs. I quite realise that there may be a case for cutting down in county constituencies. I feel that the main Debate will take place on the question that the Clause be read a Second time, and I think it would be much easier for all of us to say what we have in our minds now, and, if necessary, move Amendments later. I have an Amendment later to exempt boroughs from this Clause, and to permit the same expenditure per head as at present in boroughs. The first question I ask myself is, is this the right time to alter the sum per head which can be expended by a candidate in an election? The figure of 5d. for boroughs was fixed after very careful consideration by the Speaker's Conference of 1918. We are now to have a vastly increased electorate, and in the same Bill by which we are creating all these new voters we are asking Members voluntarily to cut down the amount which they are to be allowed to spend as candidates at elections. Personally I think it would be very much better if we kept the sum at its present figure until we have seen what happens in the next General Election, when the
new electorate will have a chance to express its views and we can see exactly how these young people from 21 to 30, and a lot over 30, will vote, and how the election has been conducted.
Another point to which I would like to refer was that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell), when he told us that there have been occasions in the past, in borough constituencies particularly, when it has been practically impossible for a Conservative candidate to make his views known by speech owing to the rowdyism at his meetings. That particular candidate has no alternative but to see that his views are made known to the bulk of the electorate by other means. He has to resort to printing, and that costs money, both the printing and the distribution. I am glad to say that has not been my experience in my own constituency, but this possibility has to be borne in mind in the case of borough constituencies, and we ought to pause before we compulsorily cut down the amount which a candidate is permitted to spend. The party opposite, the Socialist party, have a very efficient machine of which they make use at election times, though it does not appear in their election expenses, and that is the trade union organisation, and they may be perfectly entitled to use it, but I do not see why we on the Conservative benches should voluntarily cut down our expenditure while at the same time leaving them free to use that machine, as they undoubtedly do use it and gain advantage from it.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What about the "pubs"?

Captain HUDSON: I assure you that the people who go to the "pubs" are not all Conservatives.

Mr. WALLHEAD: But that is where the dirty work takes place.

Captain HUDSON: We are here fixing a maximum scale and not a minimum scale, a point which is often lost sight of by hon. Members on these benches. We have a large number of hon. Members who are keenly in favour of reducing the amount to be spent per head, because they feel that the cost of their own elections should be kept down. Well, it is entirely in their own hands; they have their own election agents. Nobody is saying they must spend a minimum sum,
merely that they must not spend more than a certain amount. It is not fair to argue that because a maximum is fixed a Member is bound to spend up to that maximum. If a Member is run by his agent that is his own fault; and he ought not to come to Parliament for protection against his own agent. Again, on what is the money spent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite cheer that, but the money cannot be spent corruptly. HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The law is very strong. If any hon. Member opposite knows of money being spent corruptly in a constituency which returns a Conservative Member he has got his redress. The law is very strong indeed, as all hon. Members know, and therefore it is ridiculous to say that the maximum is to be cut down in order to prevent corruption.

Mr. THURTLE: The law is very costly as well.

Captain HUDSON: By this new Clause it is proposed to cut down the maximum but is that quite fair? What about new candidates, who are seeking to get into this House for the first time? It is perfectly obvious that a new candidate will have to spend very much more money, or will have to work very much harder than will a man who has been a Member of this House for four or five years. The new candidate has to make his views known, and if we decide to cut down the amount to be spent at elections he will say that sitting Members will have an unfair advantage over new candidates in different constituencies. As regards myself, I believe my electorate will rise from 34,000 to 44,000, and the extra amount of money required under this new Clause would be about £50. I do not believe that is enough in case I want to spend the maximum amount.

Captain FRASER: I think the hon. Member has left the Committee in doubt about, the calculation made by him.

Captain HUDSON: If this new Clause is accepted, I shall be allowed £50 more for 10,000 extra electors, and I do not think that is sufficient. Hon. Members opposite say that we shall not require anything except a few extra thousand election addresses, hut I am told by my own agent that I shall require new Committee rooms because it will be impossible
to deal, in the case of a borough, with such an enormous number of people in the existing Committee rooms. I think it is very unfair to cut down expenses in this way. The old argument has been used, that the present system favours the rich man as against the poor, but I believe that to be completely untrue. Is there anybody who is ready to argue that it will make the slightest difference to anyone standing for Parliament if this particular sum is altered as suggested in the new Clause? We all know that the main expenses of being a Member of Parliament are not the election expenses, but the expenses as a Member of running a constituency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, Oh!"] That is a well known fact on both sides of the House. The only difference is that in the case of Government supporters we have to run it ourselves, and in the case of hon. Members opposite the expenses are paid for them. I do not believe this Clause would be a wise one to pass at the present time, because it is unjust to candidates and Members. If the House accepts this new Clause, I hope we shall also accept the Amendment to exempt boroughs, and let them go on under their present scale, which was carefully considered by the Speaker's Conference and has worked very well for a number of years.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) seems to have forgotten that Elections are often won before the Election campaign commences, and it will make no difference whether this Clause is accepted or rejected. The adoption of this new Clause will make no difference as to the amount of money that can be expended except during the short time the Election is taking place.

Captain HUDSON: Does the hon. Member deny that there are hundreds of candidates who come before the electors only about three weeks before an Election takes place.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am alluding to desirable candidates who endeavour to make themselves acquainted with the constituency and the needs and desires of the people they are seeking to represent. A reference has been made to the figures settled by the Conference of 1918, and it is argued that the figures
determined by that Conference should remain for all time. Surely the value of money in 1918 as compared with its value in 1928 makes some difference. When one examines the figures that would be permissible under this Bill as it now stands, or if this new Clause is accepted, the figures of 1918 can be dispensed with, and we ought to come nearer home in reference to the actual cost of running a Parliamentary Election. We have been asked to assume that approximately 25 per cent. increase will take place in the electorate over the whole area of Great Britain. There will be changes here and there. The increase will be larger in some constituencies and less in others, but taken as a whole, the average increase will be approximately 25 per cent. Assuming that the electorate of a borough is 30,000 to-day and the increase reaches 25 per cent. the expenditure permissible under this new Clause will be exactly the same as the amount of money which is permitted to be spent to-day. It is true that the electorate may be 25 per cent. larger, but an examination of the figures at the last three Parliamentary Elections shows that only a small number of candidates required the actual amount which they were permitted to spend.
It seems to me that for hon. Members to plead that candidates should be permitted to spend more money upon their Election expenses in the future than they have been permitted to do in the past is lending this House to a system of bribery and curruption which ought not to be allowed to enter into Parliamentary Elections. If we take the County constituency and the normal increase is 25 per cent., even if this new Clause is accepted, in a constituency where the electorate to-day is 30,000 and in future will be 37,500, the candidate will be permitted to spend £100 more at the next Election. I think that sum of money is sufficient to enable any candidate to run any Parliamentary contest quite efficiently. Whether the Socialist party have a better electoral machine than either the Conservative or the Liberal party makes no difference. There is, of course, one slight difference, and that is that the Socialist party believe in their policy and the others do not. [Interruption.] There is, however, no reason why the
House of Commons should allow the Conservative party the use of large sums of money to buy electorates which they have not been able to educate into becoming their willing voluntary supporters, as the Socialist party are able to do.
This Clause, from every point of view, ought to be accepted, not only for the purpose of reducing unnecessary opportunities for outrageous expenditure, and making it possible for the poorest candidate to have an opportunity, but also for the purpose of reducing the unpleasant things that one notices at by lections. The sums of money that would be allowed under this Clause are large enough for any candidate to spend, and I think that, notwithstanding the increase in the electorate, the actual expense will be very little larger than in the past. It would be a step in the right direction if the Clause were accepted.

Mr. RENTOUL: I desire to support this. Clause, especially as my name was attached to the Instruction passed by the House earlier in the day. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) is correct in saying that this really is a non-party question, and, because I believe that to be the case, I should like to add my voice to the appeal that has been made to the Home Secretary to leave this matter to a free vote of the Committee. I gather that at the moment we are not discussing any question of amount, but rather the question of principle, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley was in substance correct when he said that those who support this Clause want to see the general level of expenses, in spite of the increased electorate, left more or less where it is to-day; that is to say, they desire that this additional electorate should not impose a substantial additional burden upon candidates.
10.0 p.m.
Everyone admits that, owing to the size of the electorate, this question of expense has become a very serious matter to all parties. Personally, I believe that in many instances the best men are deterred from coming forward as candidates—I mean the type of men, no matter to what political party they happen to belong, whom we would desire
in the national interest to see Members of the House of Commons—because they are unable or unwilling to accept the financial burdens entailed. I agree that the ideal which we should all desire to see would be that the constituencies throughout the country should be responsible, not merely for running their local organisations and so forth, but also for the election expenses. I am afraid, however, that we have a long way to travel before we attain to that ideal, but, personally, I strongly dissent from the view which seems to be held in some quarters that the mere expenditure of money is the primary asset in winning elections. I do not deny that in these matters, as in most other spheres in life, money is a considerable asset, and I am sure that no one on the benches opposite will dispute that, because we understand that a certain amount of grievance is expressed now that Members opposite are being deprived of the enforced contributions of Conservative and Liberal working men. What really counts in winning elections, far more than expenditure of money, is, firstly, of course, the nature of the political appeal which a candidate is able to make to the constituency at the time; secondly, the personality of the candidate himself; and, thirdly, the efficiency of the to al organisation.
Here again, I do not believe that the efficiency of a local organisation depends upon the amount of money that is spent. It depends far more on the amount of voluntary work that can be obtained. Voluntary work is undoubtedly far more valuable than any paid work can possibly be. We have all had many opportunities of appreciating the wonderful nature of work that is done voluntarily, and never more so, I think, than during the days of the general strike, when the amount of voluntary work done, to a large extent by those who were supporters of the Conservative and Liberal parties, was remarkable. I support this Clause because I believe that, looking at the matter from a party point of view, it will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the support that we on this side shall be able to obtain. In 1918 the electorate was, as we know, enormously increased, but at the same time the scale of election expenses was very substantially reduced, because it was
obviously considered that the cost under the new conditions would be far too great, although one would have imagined that a better case could have been made out for an increase of election expenses at that time, when so many millions were being added to the electorate, than at the present time.
I believe that it would be a step in the wrong direction if we were not to make some provision in this Bill for keeping the election expenses at about the same level as at present, and I hope that in the course of time it may even be possible to reduce them further. From the experience that I have had—and I believe that many other Members will agree with me—in fighting the three elections in a county Division, I am satisfied that there is a great deal of useless expenditure at election times. There is the expenditure on posters and so forth, and there is the fact, also, that enormous pressure is put upon candidates to spend up to the limit of what is permitted. That, in many instances, does not come from one's agent, but very often from some of one's most enthusiastic supporters, especially if the election is a keenly contested one. As the interest grows, and the days pass, pressure comes to increase the intensity of one's campaign, involving the expenditure of more and more money. It is pretty well known by one's supporters how much has been expended up to any particular moment, and, consequently, if it is known that the candidate has a considerable sum still in hand, that pressure becomes very great. At any rate that is the experience of myself and I believe of many others, and it is a condition of affairs against which there should be some safeguard. If this new Clause is not accepted, there will be an increase of permissible expenditure, in practically every constituency, of £200 or £300 as compared with the present amount. As to whether an alteration should be made in connection with boroughs, I do not feel competent to express an opinion, but I am convinced that there is room for a reduction of expenditure in county constituencies, where the conditions are somewhat different. The borough Members can, of course, speak for themselves on this question, but I believe that if this Clause is accepted, and the principle
which it embodies is put into this Bill, it will not in any way entail a reduction of efficiency. Foe these reasons, I desire to support it.

Mr. KELLY: I wish to support the new Clause. If I have any fault to find with it, it is that the reduction is not greater. The suggested differentiation as to the reduction being required in the counties and not in the boroughs is something I cannot understand. I have heard attempts made to explain it by some hon. Members opposite, but not one of them has given a reason why there should be even the amount of money that is at present expended. The abuses, which one can see, particularly in by-elections, of the opportunity of spending as much money as is now allowed is a clear indication. I notice that the hon. Member with whom I contested a by-election points his finger across here. The hon. Member in front of hint speaks of conditions being ideal when a constituency itself raises the money for its candidates. The constituency of Yeovil was able to find the money for its candidate—not the present Member—on three occasions without asking for any assistance from outside. As for the expenditure of the hon. Member, T am trusting to memory, but, so far as that by-election went, I think his expenses ran to somewhere about £1,100, while the Labour candidate got through on something like £400. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who got in?"1 The wrong man. I would ask: What is the justification for even retaining the expenditure at the present level?
The hon. Member for North-West Campbell (Mr. Campbell), a division in which I have lived for some years, has asked the Committee to allow an even greater expenditure, and the only point he could put forward is that it is difficult for Conservatives to make themselves heard—or understood. That would be a better way of putting it. But that is not new. I remember before Labour came into the field to the extent of its present strength, and when it was even more difficult for the two rival parties to make themselves heard in many constituencies, and in this House too. One would imagine that this difficulty of public meetings is something that is quite modern. It was much more extensive before the Labour party became anything like as numerous as we find it
now. The suggestion is that because they cannot be heard, or understood, they require to expend more money in order to send literature round. Probably, as one hon. Member suggests it is for the provision of loud speakers in the home. I do not know that that comes within legitimate expenses at a Parliamentary election. Surely it is not suggested that Conservative and Liberal Members intend to send more pamphlets and circulars into the home than at present. As a matter of fact, it is not counted. The Conservative and Liberal headquarters always speak of the number of tons of paper sent round, and the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell suggests that we should be allowed to spend still more and to send ever more of this paper and what passes for literature from the other two parties.
I trust the Government will accept the Clause, and will not listen to the suggestion of increasing the figure of 5d. which now operates. I hope the Committee, by accepting this, will help to make elections something else than an opportunity for wealthy men to spend a great deal of money. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) suggested that we on this side of the House have the funds of trade unions to depend on while hon. Members opposite find the money for themselves. But, judging by the number and the type of people who are sent to constituencies, particularly at by-elections, I should imagine there is a very strong central fund for that purpose. The trade unions finance many men and women who are not able to find their own election expenses, but that assistance has always been limited, and they do not spend considerable sums between elections as the hon. Member suggested. Another hon. Member spoke of the independence of those who are able to find their expenses out of their own pockets. We hear a great deal of this. I hope the expenditure is going to be kept down to the figure that is mentioned in the Clause. I wish it was much less than the figure suggested, but the fact of having expenses found, even by the trade unions, does not tie the hands or the opinions of Members on this side of the House. We have sat under this for a long time without giving the answer that ought to be made to these suggestions that are flung about.
There is no condition attaching to the funds that are found by the trade unions. I hope the Clause will be carried, and I hope it will be the beginning of even greater reductions in expenditure at elections.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I have taken considerable interest in this Debate, and I cannot help thinking, from the attitude of the Socialist party; that the Government, or, at any rate, a great number of the Members on this side of the House, ought to begin to realise that at least there is some political interest taken in the attempt to curtail the activities of the Conservative party. I cannot help thinking that it is almost entirely agreed that there is absolutely nothing to be gained by saying to a man: "You must not spend more than a certain amount. You are to be limited, not because you cannot do it on the amount which we are going to stipulate, but because we think that, if you are limited, it is going to have the effect of preventing you from taking the necessary precautions to secure your return. "I have had a very considerable experience of elections. I fought many elections before the War, and I can say without fear of contradiction that I have never spent the maximum amount that I have been at liberty to spend. I do not think those hon. Members opposite who are able to fight an election on one-third of what it costs any Member on this side of the House should have taken up this attitude. It does not affect their pockets if the limit is 5d. in boroughs or 4d. in boroughs. They only spend about 2d.
They seem to be very solicitous about the pockets of the Conservatives. We appreciate their kindness in bringing forward this new Clause, but I do not think they and the Conservative Members who have put down an Amendment to this Clause, realise the difference, as was pointed out last night at the meeting, between the minimum and the maximum. [HON. MENBERS: "What meeting?"] I do not feel inclined to gratify the curiosity of hon. Members opposite. The discretion of incurring the maximum or the minimum amount of expenditure must lie entirely in the hands of the candidate. A candidate, if he has any ability at all to manage his own affairs, can tell his agent that he will not exceed a certain amount. The
hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) stated that sometimes the friends of the candidate forced him to incur expenditure up to the maximum amount, and he stated that there were people who knew what had been spent up to a certain period. In all my experience during the course of many elections, at any given moment I have not been able to ascertain nor have I troubled to ascertain what my agent had spent. I discuss with my agent what is necessary to be done, and if he exceeds that it is my business to deal with him, and I should take very good care that he would not act as my agent very much longer.

Mr. KIRKWO0D: You would be generous.

Mr. SAMUEL: Very generous, so long as my orders are obeyed. The question of expenditure is a very serious matter. No man is obliged to spend more than he wishes to spend. You can fight an election and win it on a very small expenditure if you are properly organised, provided that your opponent plays the game and does not at the eleventh hour spring some surprise upon you; some false charge. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite realise exactly what I mean. I always have the very unfortunate knack of saying what I mean. I have had experience of many elections and I know that the necessity sometimes arises which compels a candidate to put his hands into his pockets, no matter how reluctant he may be, in order to find more election expenses. The candidate who says that he is unable to control his election agent in the expenditure for an election is incapable of carrying on any business.
Many candidates, especially young men coming to the House of Commons, have the ambition to get into the Government. When they tell us that they cannot control the expenditure of one man, what is going to happen if and when they are put in control of a Department and of the different officials in that Department who have to spend the money of the country? If the experience of the head of the Department is such that he cannot control his agent, how can he control a Department and check the excessive expenditure of his Department. I hope that
the Government will repudiate the assertion or the suspicion that they are unable to control the various Departments, through lack of experience or through lack of being able to tackle their agents. I hope they will prove by making up their minds this evening, or what they are pleased to call their minds, and deciding to give strong opposition to this curtailment not of what the expenditure must be but what in case of emergency the candidate might be compelled to spend in the interests of the country. I consider that the Conservative party is vital to the country. I hope the Government will not on this occasion be weak enough to try an experiment at the expense of the nation.

Captain FRASER: Having had the indulgence of the Committee for some little time already to-day, I propose to say but a very few words on this question. It is assumed by hon. Members who are opposing the Clause that in the boroughs at least it will do the Conservative party very grave harm. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) that the principle factor in winning an election is not the money that is spent upon it, nor do I believe, as was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney North (Captain Hudson) that the best way to prevent your meetings being broken up and yourself being shouted down is to spend money. There are, I frankly confess, some divisions—the division of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) is not one—in which a reduction in the amount to be spent per elector may produce a slight handicap on certain Conservative Members, but against that disadvantage, if it can be considered a disadvantage from a party point of view, there is the ultimate and very important advantage that you are widening the field of choice for candidates and giving the Conservative parry an opportunity of appealing to the electors more on its merits than on its inherited advantages. I submit with all earnestness that this is a point of great importance to which the leaders of the Conservative party, as statesmen rather than politicians, should give their attention.
So much has been said as to the various advantages and disadvantages of giving a Second Reading to this Clause that I do not propose to go over that ground again, but I should like to emphasise the neces-
sity for taking off the Whips. I hope the Government will allow the Committee a free vote in this matter. It does not affect Government policy at all; it is a matter in which the Government need not take the responsibility. I believe a majority of hon. Members would like to see election expenses per elector reduced and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to take the Whips off and give us the opportunity of a free vote. There are some hon. Members who have come into the House within the last few moments, and I would beg them to note that we are now determining, not the final form in which election expenses in boroughs and counties will be charged, but rather the principle that some reduction can be made without any detrimental effect and with manifest advantages. It has been suggested by some that there is almost a large measure of agreement as to the need for reduction in the counties, and on that ground alone I hope that many right hon. and hon. Friends of mine will vote for this Clause. There are others who believe with me that the reduction should be made in the boroughs too. But I would point out to those who do not believe that a reduction should be made in the boroughs that they are not finally settling that matter by voting for this Clause. The Chairman has pointed out that Amendments can be moved excluding the boroughs. I earnestly hope that no such Amendment will be moved, or that, if moved, it will not be carried. But the vote which will be taken very soon is not to determine that; it will determine merely the principle that some reduction can usefully be made and should be made.
Finally, I would urge this point: Unless it can be shown that the increased money —which amounts to some £200 in the average borough and nearly £300 in the average county—is necessary. I submit that to a great number of hon. Members who fight for their seats at half or three-quarters of the limit it is very difficult to show that; and when in the elections of 1922, 1923 and 1924, with an increasing electorate, you had decreasing expenditure, it is very difficult to show that this increasing sum, or at any rate the whole of the 25 per cent. of increase, is necessary. It has been stated by other speakers that under no circumstances could the full 25 per cent. of increase of expenditure take place merely because there is an addition of 25 per cent. of
electors. I submit that unless it can be shown that the money is necessary in the public interest, no party argument, no personal advantage, no other reason should stand in the way of a Second Reading of this Clause.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I hope the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) will acquit me of any desire to be discourteous if I say that his intervention in the Debate, welcome though it was, has rather diverted attention from a speech which ought to have been given a little more attention than it has received. That is the speech made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel). I invite the Home Secretary to take his mind back to that speech, in order to realise the kind of argument that he is asked to adopt if he should think fit to reject the Clause. The hon. Member for Putney referred to this new Clause as an attempt to curtail the political activity of the Conservative party. Are we to understand by that, that the political activities of the Conservative party are measured, or are to be measured, by the amount of money that they spend in the constituencies?

Mr. S. SAMUEL: I referred to the election where at the last moment it was necessary to contradict false statements.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I thank the hon. Member for having stated, perhaps even more clearly, the point of view which he has already expressed. The hon. Member was repeating the speech which he made apparently upstairs or in another place yesterday. [Laughter] I have no objection to the hon. Member repeating himself downstairs.

Mr. SAMUEL: I may say that I never repeat myself.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Then all I can say is that the lion. Member ought to do so, because the more he repeats himself the more we shall be pleased. He suggested that some people on this side—I do not know whether above or below the Gangway—were incapable of knowing the difference between a maximum and a minimum. May I point out to him that those who, as a general rule, only enjoy a minimum can appreciate that difference just as clearly as those who enjoy a maximum. When the hon. Member talks about maximum and minimum ex-
penses, and suggests that the person who does not wish to spend the maximum can spend less than the maximum, he, with his considerable commercial experience, must know perfectly well that your expenditure is very often largely controlled, not by what you desire but by the expenditure of your competitor.

Mr. SAMUEL: Mine is not; yours may be.

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. I wish to know whether it is in Order for two hon. Members to continue a private conversation?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It should be done through me.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I did not hear your ruling, Sir, but I gather that, so far, I have not gone outside the bounds of order. I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Putney and I am going to suggest that the hon. Member would not have attained the position which he has attained, unless he had followed to some extent the rule in commercial life that your expenditure is controlled by your competitor's expenditure.

Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly not.

Mr. CRAWFURD: If one candidate is in a position to spend a, great deal more than another candidate, he must obviously gain an advantage. The hon. Member cannot expect us on this side, either those above or those below the Gangway, to follow him.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: You will go in front of him.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think I hear an hon. Member asking me "why" and my answer is that the speech betrays with only too cruel certainty what is in his mind. The hon. Member for Putney cannot expect us to follow him in the argument that it is only the Conservative party who may be called upon at the last moment to answer something and may, therefore, require to spend a large amount of money. This question of the amount of expenses touches a very important point of principle. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), when he says that this is not a question of the comparative efficiency of the three party
machines. He went on to say, in parenthesis, that the difference was that the Labour party believed in their policy and that the other two parties did not. Of course, he meant the Independent Labour Party when he said that, but that, as far as I can understand it, did not really affect the question which we are discussing.
There are only two real points that affect the question that I have heard, and the first was made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson), and the other was made by another hon. Member opposite. I cannot for the life of me understand the reason for the argument that the expenditure should not be increased in the county divisions but should be allowed to be increased in the boroughs, because, although I have never fought a county division, so far as I understand it, if there is any likelihood of or necessity for the expenditure of money being increased, that will be so in the counties more than in the boroughs, the reason being that in the boroughs it is true—as was said, I believe, by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) earlier in the day, or by some other hon. Member opposite—that there is very little chance of your normal channels of expenditure being increased except in the direction of literature.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) into a discussion of the comparative weights, either physical or moral of the literature issued by the different parties, but in the boroughs the main channels of expenditure, apart from literature, can scarcely be increased under this Bill. I think there is nothing in that argument, but the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney said that the rates which are at present in the Bill were fixed as a result of the Speaker's Conference of 1918, and that there was no particular reason why they should be altered. Surely, however, the hon. and gallant Member realises that those amounts were fixed not only as the amount per elector, but also in relation to the total expenditure which would fall upon each candidate at an election, and if he is going to use that argument, we can equally say that as a result of the rates that were then fixed, a certain average maxi-
mum of expenditure for a candidate was fixed at the same time, and there is equally no reason why that should be altered to the disadvantage of the candidate. But these are matters of detail.
I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I am going to plead with him, not to take the Whips off for this Division, but to keep them on and use them to urge an acceptance of this Clause. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary occupies a unique position in the politics of this country to-day. I heard him say a few weeks ago at a lunch, when he was contrasting himself with a colleague of his in the Government—and he made a very complimentary remark about his colleague—"I am what Low has made me." The right hon. Gentleman did himself less than justice, and we, on these benches, recognise and are grateful for the change which has come over the right hon. Gentleman. We are grateful for the several democratic utterances that he made this afternoon, and I am going to ask him this: Are not the main lines of the argument that was used by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) perfectly sound? Is it not a simple and good principle that, as our democratic system is extending, the money payments of candidates should remain at as low a level as possible? That seems to me a very sound principle on which to base a decision, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of candidates who may not otherwise be able to stand for membership of this House, if it is not a good principle as a whole that money payments should be as small as possible in order to maintain the standard of our politics at as high a level as possible?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to put before the Committee some facts and figures which I have had worked out, as far as they possibly can be got out, as to what the effect of the present expenditure applied to constituencies would be. Assume that the figure is roughly correct that the constituency is increased by 25 per cent. In a county constituency, where there are at present 30,000 electors, if they are increased by a quarter, the increased sum which would be provided for expen-
diture would be £208. If the electorate is one of 40,000 constituents, of which there are a great number, and it is increased by 10,000, the increased expenditure allowed would be £291. Similarly, in a borough constituency of 30,000, an increase of 25 per cent. in number would give an increased expenditure of .156, and a borough constituency of 40,000, which is increased by 25 per cent., would have allowed an increased sum of £208.
The Prime Minister, in the speech which has been quoted and in other statements, stated that what we wanted was a full discussion in this House in order that the Government might receive the views of hon. Members in all sections of the House. We have had to-night a very remarkable Debate with very little, real agreement on the main lines, and I find, from the Amendments that are down, proposals made by different Members of the House ranging in counties from 7d. to 6d., 5d. and 4d., and in boroughs from 5d. to 4d., 3½d. and 3d. It must be exceedingly difficult to arrive at any decision between these very conflicting figures, and the opinions of hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House seem to be almost as conflicting as those figures. There is one point which I think I ought to mention, because it was made by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and I am sure he made a mistake, but it is a remarkable point which tells strongly against him. He was remarking about the value of money, but, if the value of money means anything, and we know there has been a great change in the value of money, and that £500 cannot buy as much printing to-day as in 1918—

HON. MEMBERS: That was his point.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It will buy more now.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole cost of living has gone up.

HON. MEMBERS: Not since 1918.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I mean 1914. There are a large number of questions to be considered. There were points raised by hon. Gentlemen representing the county constituencies in regard to the question of whether it is necessary that extra expense should
take place. All these questions are difficult ones, and I would ask the House, as we have had a very long and complete Debate, to allow the discussion to close and to report Progress in order that I may report to the Prime Minister the result of this discussion, and that, on Monday, when it is proposed to resume consideration of this Bill, I may be prepared to come down and state to the House the considered views of the Government after having heard the very full and clear expression of views of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I think that will meet the views of all sides.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed!

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I am not going to make a speech, but I was wondering whether the Home Secretary would not meet the Committee thus far. I think it is within the recollection of the Committee that, however much diversity of opinion there may be about the details, there has been a general agreement that the question of expenses should he dealt with. We may find ourselves, when we come to the Amendments indicated by hon. Members, in different lobbies', but I think there will be very few in a different lobby on the Second Reading of this new Clause. Would it not be very much better to get the Second Reading of the Clause—[HON. MEMBERS; "No!"]—and then report Progress and deal with the details on Monday?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion I have made. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear all that has been said. There have been speeches on the other side in regard to the Bill.

Mr. MacDONALD: I heard every word of it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very glad, because then the right hon. Gentleman will have benefited, as I have done, by the diversity of opinion. I hope he will not press his suggestion and that the House will adjourn now. I will see that all the questions raised are most fully considered by the Prime Minister and the Government, and I hope that we may be able to arrive at a decision by Monday which may carry the opinion of the great majority of the House on both sides.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 23rd April.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.